35mm's Snapshots

[nobuffalo]

@F1GTR: Yeah it's Pan F 50, my mistake. Damn. So would processing 50 at 400 be considered underdeveloped? I feel like since I had a roll of 400 they did them back to back and could have messed it up in that way. I'll be out of town until Friday so I'll go in then and see if I can at least get my money back and a fresh roll, I don't know how stubborn these kinds of places are but if they don't work with me I might think about giving them a bad review. Mistakes happen, but if it was their mistake and they don't care I'll be pissed. Blah blah blah. I wanted to wait to hear from someone before I went in.

Is it possible the film canister itself could leak? I did have this roll sitting around for about 6 months, perhaps a bad idea. The HP5 was with it all along though.

Thanks for the help, guys. Sorry for the thread hijack.

 

[wfooshee]

@casey_2005, Don't hold your breath on any kind of relief from the lab. I generalize, but Fuji ruined a roll of Velvia for me a few months ago by processing it as C-41 negative film instead of E-6 positive film. Their restitution was a disposable camera loaded with 800-speed print film....... I wanted to throw it away, but I did something more entertaining with it: I burned it. Seems like a no-brainer to replace the stuff you destroyed with a roll of the same stuff, like-for-like, but no, I got a crappy trash camera for my roll of Velvia.

When you say "unexposed," is the film clear or nearly black? Clear film could be a result of way too short a time in the developer stage. Over-development (too much time in the developer stage) will cause very dark negatives. Over-development is intentional when push processing, i.e. using 100 film exposed for 400.

I really don't know much else about the process. I don't know if developer time varies with ISO the way exposure does. Should 50 be developed longer than 400? If it should, then maybe they didn't....

 

[F1GTR]

@casey_2005: I had a look at developing times for Pan 5 compared to HP5 in ID11 @ 1:1, and Pan F takes less time to develop fully (8.5 mins for pan F, 13 mins for HP5). I doubt that your lab developed them both at the same time, and even if they decided to develop them both as HP5 ISO400 you'd have overdeveloped (i.e denser) negatives for the Pan F. Or, like you said, they developed the HP5+ first, and then used the same solution for the Pan F but forgot to develop for longer to compensate for the already used solution.

 

[35mm]

What a shame... 👎

@casey_2005: feel free to continue the discussion here if you want. And let us know what the lab said.

1/50 | ƒ/4 | ISO 6400 | 20 mm




1/500 | ƒ/2.8 | ISO 100 | 135 mm




1/320 | ƒ/8 | ISO 100 | 20 mm




1/4000 | ƒ/1.8 | ISO 100 | 50 mm​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/8.0 | 50 mm | 1/250 | ISO 100​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/3.5 | 20 mm | 1/80 | ISO 125​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/3.5 | 20 mm | 1/125 | ISO 100​

 

[Jrichmond0826]

ƒ/3.5 | 20 mm | 1/80 | ISO 125​

i love this photo pretty cool man

 

[nobuffalo]

@DiabolicalMask, @F1GTR and @wfooshee, I've been out of town for about a week but I was able to get to the lab today to have a talk. The guy at the counter agreed that the film looked to have been underdeveloped but he couldn't really give an answer as to how. He said with the machine they have that if something like this were to happen 20 rolls would have been underdeveloped and not just one. He kept the roll and will run it by the individual who does the processing and will get back to me when he finds out more. As for reimbursement he gave me what they had which was two rolls of HP5 Plus 400 and also wrote me out a coupon for free developing of those two rolls. You can't really put a value on something like this but I am satisfied with the film and free developing, about the only other thing I could ask for is an admittance of fault but I can't say for sure it was theirs, perhaps the film was bad or something.

Thanks again for the input. 👍 I'm gonna start looking into processing my own B&W, I may have more issues but at least I'll know who to blame!

 

[35mm]

@Jrichmond0826 Thank you. 👍
@casey_2005 Hey, spend those two rolls well now.


I'm a little late updating this, so here goes:

ƒ/1.4 50.0 mm 1/800 100




ƒ/22.0 20.0 mm 1/80 320




ƒ/2.8 135.0 mm 1/800 100




ƒ/8.0 20.0 mm 1/160 100





ƒ/4.0 135.0 mm 1/80 1250




ƒ/4.0 20.0 mm 1/80 1800




ƒ/2.8 135.0 mm 1/80 200​

 

[Boffin]

Every time I pop my head in here the level of quality hasn't dipped at all. I always enjoy it dude 👍

Really should put some stuff up on mine one of these days..

 

[wfooshee]

LOVE the cat!!! Light to dark across the background, cat's head in front of the edge of the chair back. My eyes want his eyes to be yellow! I keep seeing yellow eyes even though it's b&w. :-)

 

[35mm]

Every time I pop my head in here the level of quality hasn't dipped at all. I always enjoy it dude 👍

Thanks! That's nice to hear. And please do come back often.

I keep seeing yellow eyes even though it's b&w. :-)

You do know that it's a colour photo, right...?

ƒ/11.0 20.0 mm 1/160 100​

 

[wfooshee]

You do know that it's a colour photo, right...?

Hey, on a different system and a different monitor, it is!!!!

 

[35mm]

ƒ/11.0 20.0 mm 1/200 100​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/11.0 20.0 mm 1/200 100​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/3.5 20.0 mm 1/800 100​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/8.0 20.0 mm 1/200 100​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/2.8 135.0 mm 1/250 2000​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/4.0 20.0 mm 1/30 6400​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/1.8 50.0 mm 1/60 2200​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/4.0 50.0 mm 1/60 4500​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/4.0 20.0 mm 1/60 4000​

 

[35mm]

I haven't been updating this, sorry.

There are just some simple street shots from a small outing in the city that I currently live.

ƒ/2.5 35.0 mm 1/1600 100



ƒ/2.5 35.0 mm 1/500 100



ƒ/8.0 20.0 mm 1/250 100



ƒ/2.5 35.0 mm 1/2500 100



ƒ/2.5 35.0 mm 1/800 100


​

 

[35mm]

Nikkor Series E 35mm f/2.5 | all wide-open




ƒ/1.4 50.0 mm 1/60 4000​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/1.4 50.0 mm 1/60 6400​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/1.8 35.0 mm 1/100 100​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/8.0 20.0 mm 1/640 100​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/1.8 50.0 mm 1/60 100​

 

[35mm]

ƒ/1.8 50.0 mm 1/2500 100​