# Unintended consequences



## nealjpage (Dec 11, 2007)

Fortepan 400 ran through my Bronica ETRS and developed in Diafine.  Not reallly alt process, but the results are sorta Holga-esque.  I assume that I unloaded the film in a bit too much light and I think I somehow got some dust or something stuck to the emulsion when it was wet.  Reminds me of negatives that I've found laying around at my grandparents' place that were shot n the '20s.  Scanned directly from the negatives--no prints made yet.

1.






2.
<
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




3.





I was captivated by this farmstead, btw.   Comments welcome.


----------



## windrivermaiden (Dec 12, 2007)

IN THEIR OWN SPECIAL WAY, THEY ARE COOL.


----------



## nealjpage (Dec 12, 2007)

windrivermaiden said:


> IN THEIR OWN SPECIAL WAY, THEY ARE COOL.



Thanks, Windy.  You know, people have called me "special" before, too!


----------



## m1a1fan (Dec 13, 2007)

nealjpage said:


> I was captivated by this farmstead, btw.  Comments welcome.


 
I'm captivated by the photos.  I like them, especially 1 & 3.


----------



## Alpha (Dec 13, 2007)

That first shot is really grainy but sharp as ****.


----------



## nealjpage (Dec 13, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> That first shot is really grainy but sharp as ****.



Thanks, Max.  I was wondering if it wasn't sharp enough.  But then again, I've got crappy eyes, so I never can tell..


----------



## nealjpage (Dec 13, 2007)

m1a1fan said:


> I'm captivated by the photos.  I like them, especially 1 & 3.



Thanks!  Are either of them worth enlarging?


----------



## m1a1fan (Dec 14, 2007)

You know, I keep coming back to look at these. They really grab my attention.

I like the first shot but feel there's just a bit to much sky in there. I find that my eye keeps wandering up to the heavens. 

The second shot is nice but it doesn't have much of a subject to draw my attention to.

I'm really beginning to like the third shot and it's quickly becoming my favorite. The only thing with that one is the four specs of dust right above the barn.

I'm not a film expert but I'm assuming since you scanned the negatives you can now process the images in Photoshop?

The grain doesn't bother me. I think it adds to the photo.

I think they're worth printing to see how they come out.

Sent you a PM.


----------



## m1a1fan (Dec 14, 2007)

neal-

It said your photos were ok to edit so I took a shot at the dust particles. It's like 3am here and I'm looking for something to do.


----------



## JC1220 (Dec 14, 2007)

There are almost more negative defects than the clinton's have scandals with these, the only reason to print would be to check the technical side of things, but most of that can be obtained by looking at the negatives. Perhaps it can be addressed with PS, but there is too much to deal with a wet process.

Chalk it up to a learning experience and try again.


----------



## nealjpage (Dec 14, 2007)

JC1220 said:


> There are almost more negative defects than the clinton's have scandals with these





It would be a learning experience if I could remember what I did wrong!


----------



## Alpha (Dec 14, 2007)

would be a good exercise in neg spotting I suppose.


----------



## JC1220 (Dec 14, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> would be a good exercise in neg spotting I suppose.


 
 holy crap it would!

For these cases I always keep a sharp razor blade next to my light table...:mrgreen:


----------



## Jennyboo7481 (Jan 5, 2008)

The grain and light defects(?) make these photos kind of haunting. Like one of the image flashes in The Ring. I feel like there is a story behind the photos just waiting to be told!


----------



## monkeykoder (Jan 15, 2008)

Heck I like the grainy spotty effect...  Isn't that the whole point of using a pinhole camera?  It makes the pictures feel REALLY old not saying I would do it to all my pictures but it is kinda cool I would definitely keep a couple of prints from those around my house.


----------

