# x-process



## nealjpage (Aug 18, 2007)

Agfachrome RSX50 shot on my Rolleicord.  One stop over-exposed.

1.





2.







As always, C & C appreciated.


----------



## terri (Aug 22, 2007)

Neal: please find a suitable frame and mat for #1, and make a nice enlargement. I love it! Display that crazy piece of Americana, will you? It's just insane.

You have a good eye for what works with this x-processing. It's not for every image, but you pull it off with consistency. Hope you work out your problems finding a lab who won't jerk you around about "the damage" the processing causes.


----------



## nealjpage (Aug 22, 2007)

terri said:


> Neal: please find a suitable frame and mat for #1, and make a nice enlargement. I love it! Display that crazy piece of Americana, will you? It's just insane.
> 
> You have a good eye for what works with this x-processing. It's not for every image, but you pull it off with consistency. Hope you work out your problems finding a lab who won't jerk you around about "the damage" the processing causes.



Really?  Thanks, Terri!  :hug::  I've never been sure about my ability to use cross-processing correctly.  I'll try some more, especially since it's so fun!


----------



## windrivermaiden (Aug 23, 2007)

OOOOOOooooooo! Dairy Queen. I LOVE it! :heart::heart::heart:Both the photo and the subject. I think I really like this x-process stuff. It has a lot of feel.


----------



## terri (Aug 23, 2007)

nealjpage said:


> Really? Thanks, Terri! :hug:: I've never been sure about my ability to use cross-processing correctly. I'll try some more, especially since it's so fun!


Yes. Really.    See?   Windy gets it, too!

The very fact you are enjoying it so much should be all you need to soldier on. You're already overexposing by one stop to get the desired effect - you seem to be developing a style, and one that can be very effective. 

Listen to that voice inside and never let anyone dissuade you from doing what you enjoy with your photography - certainly not anyone on this digitally-weighted forum, or any other for that matter. Follow the beat of that odd little drum.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Aug 23, 2007)

#1 is fabulists and I absolutely love Agfa fine grain


----------



## glaston (Aug 31, 2007)

These are interesting. Remind me of the urban acid style a little.

That's just me and my digitally weighted mindstate though.

I don't understand why it's necessary for people to thumb their nose at certain methods or technologies in order to validate their own.
It always seems to come from the old school side of the coin too.


----------



## terri (Aug 31, 2007)

glaston said:


> These are interesting. Remind me of the urban acid style a little.
> 
> That's just me and my digitally weighted mindstate though.
> 
> ...


You really needn't comment in the film section since you carry such a large silicon chip on your shoulder. I can say the exact thing to you that I said to the OP: never let anyone dissuade you from doing what you like with your photography. You like digital? Cool, go shoot it. 

There can be no argument that this is a digitally-weighted forum; that is a factual statement - not an attitude.


----------



## nealjpage (Aug 31, 2007)

glaston said:


> I don't understand why it's necessary for people to thumb their nose at certain methods or technologies in order to validate their own.
> It always seems to come from the old school side of the coin too.



Thumbing my nose?  I don't recall doing that...


----------



## sincere (Aug 31, 2007)

Wowzers..can you pretty please share some infos on how you made the pics look like this? I really like those. Thanks!


----------



## glaston (Aug 31, 2007)

> There can be no argument that this is a digitally-weighted forum; that is a factual statement - not an attitude.


 What I'm saying is why does it even matter?
I (and most others who shoot digital) don't make comments anywhere about how people still shoot film.
We just do our thing.
We might ask why some prefer film. But we don't use those who shoot film as a reason to become self-righteous about shooting digital.
That would be stupid.

Then I come into this part of the forum, and the images here are nice, and interesting. But there are people making all these comments about how the whole board is digitally weighted and looking down on the "plastic perfection" of the digital age and everything.
Which, yeah it's true. But it's also 2007, not 1977.
And this issue really never dawned on me before I came into this part of the board.
What irks me is that it's the same old crap.
Like how people who were into fine arts at the turn of the century thumbed their nose at photographers.
It's garbage because we as the digitally weighted part, serve a purpose to you that is somewhat unknown to us.
Why do you have to stand in opposition to us in order to validate yourselves and your work?
It's like those of you who subscribe to this way of thinking, need the plastic perfection of this digital age to offset your own work.
IF the world were still all film, you wouldn't be anything special. But since you are the ones who despise the digital age and still use film, and take every opportunity to remind everyone that you oppose the digital age, you've found a little niche area for yourselves to still use film and be self-righteous about it.
This happens with everything!
Everywhere that new technology overshadows the old, there will be people like yourselves.
I just think it's pitiful that it has to be that way.

And what's seemingly worse now, you guys can't stand to have someone call you out on it.

Yeah, I like digital, it's what I own and what I know best at this point.
But I obviously have interest in other "alternative techniques".
But come to find out, those who swear by other techniques, obviously don't respect my choice to use digital. That's what my problem with this is.

All I'm asking is what's the logic behind this?
The truth is there isn't logic behind it. If there was, people would be quick to point it out.
But all I get is "go shoot your digital images", or "you got a silicon chip on your shoulder".
No straight answers, just more emotional BS.
All I want to know is why some of you feel that it's necessary to downplay one type of photography to feel secure in your own way?
And don't tell me you don't, because the proof is all over this section of the forum.


----------



## glaston (Aug 31, 2007)

Oh, and BTW, I really do like these images nealjpage!

Despite everything else, I can recognize good work when I see it.

Also, my comments aren't directed at everyone. I can see that some people just like different techniques.
I'm only angered by those who see it all from 1 simple minded perspective and refuse to hear otherwise.
And you know who you are.


----------



## windrivermaiden (Aug 31, 2007)

the forum *is **Film Photography* > Alternative Techniques & Photo Gallery
That is what we do. We work in film and alternative chemical processes. You need to find your own kind. May I suggest some other forum that caters to digital manipulation. Where you can wear your indignant silicon chip (Teri I LOVE IT) on your shoulder with pride and dignity and stop ranting about something you can't change.


----------



## glaston (Aug 31, 2007)

So you're saying that there's nothing I can do to get any respect here?
I'm not claiming to want to change the forum.
It's film forum, that's what I expect to see here.
However, I don't see why a blatant disrespect for other forms is inherent with that.
You've also proved that your personal ideas of digital are blanket assumptions.
And you're proving that nothing can change that.

I like the images here, and I respect those who make them.

I just don't like to see comments made that are disrespectful to people who use digital.
It's not warranted.
More than that, it's shameful to those who do it.

To have a different preference doesn't make a person blind.
Why do you need things to be this way?

Nobody in the digital parts of the forums practice this behavior.

It's starting to seem that this lack of understanding and respect is a fundamental character flaw in some people.
Because the same patterns exist in other aspects of society not related to art.
You'll never see me come in here and disrespect anyone for using film.
I happen to enjoy this forum. I have no plans of discussing digital techniques here.
I'm just annoyed that there's such a disrespect for other forms.
But it seems that taking jabs at digital and the people who use it is a pillar of this film community.
Something you cherish and will never give up.
It's insanity.


----------



## nealjpage (Aug 31, 2007)

sincere said:


> Wowzers..can you pretty please share some infos on how you made the pics look like this? I really like those. Thanks!



It's called cross processing.  You take a roll of slide film (in this case, 10 year expired Agfachrome RSX 50) and expose it like any other film, though over-expose it by one or two stops to enhance saturation.  So if my light meter tells me to set my f-stop to f16, I set it at f11.  Expose it, take it to the lab, and nonchalantly give it to the clerk to be processed in print-film chemicals.  They'll claim they can't do it and that it'll break their machine and that the earth will spin off it's axis.  Stand strong.  Bargain if you must.  It's worth it.  What you get back are negatives instead of positives (slides).  It takes a good lab because the colors are sort of off and it takes a bit of work to get the hues right, but the enlargements are really cool.

Give it a shot.  It's really fun.


----------



## nealjpage (Sep 1, 2007)

glaston said:


> Oh, and BTW, I really do like these images nealjpage!
> 
> Despite everything else, I can recognize good work when I see it.
> 
> ...



Thanks, Glaston.  I don't know if it's good work or just dumb luck that any of mine turn out.    I am known for my terrible luck and I am in frequent violation of Murphy's Law, but anything's possible


----------



## sincere (Sep 1, 2007)

Um...i´ll get back to you on that one


----------



## LokiZ (Sep 1, 2007)

nealjpage said:


> It's called cross processing.  You take a roll of slide film (in this case, 10 year expired Agfachrome RSX 50) and expose it like any other film, though over-expose it by one or two stops to enhance saturation.  So if my light meter tells me to set my f-stop to f16, I set it at f11.  Expose it, take it to the lab, and nonchalantly give it to the clerk to be processed in print-film chemicals.  They'll claim they can't do it and that it'll break their machine and that the earth will spin off it's axis.  Stand strong.  Bargain if you must.  It's worth it.  What you get back are negatives instead of positives (slides).  It takes a good lab because the colors are sort of off and it takes a bit of work to get the hues right, but the enlargements are really cool.
> 
> Give it a shot.  It's really fun.



Sounds interesting...so when they give you back the slide film in negative form have they still put them in cardboard frames or do you ask them to not cut them?

Also after you get them back do you develop them your self, send back through a developer to make prints from them, or scan them in later via a slide scanner?

I liked the first one of your series best.  Never seen that at any DQ's around here.  Definitely a great photo op.  the processing method and colors almost make it look like it was taking back in time.  Good touch not to have any present day cars in the frame helps keep the image timeless. Amazing.

Think my canon program AE-1 may be in for some slide film in the near future


----------

