Great video, as always. I also appreciate when you're talking about your metering process during the on-site locations -one of my favorite parts about your videos.
Another great video and great images. My favourite part was how happy you were when you started developing. I developed some sheets today and felt the same way.
@@StephenMilner .Yes, I’ve just started. I literally just opened my second box of film today. I shoot digital for work so wanted to try something that was a challenge but still photography.
Interesting, tbh I was expecting very different results from that ! I’ve had great shots in bright sun with no filters and a couple of good ones with 90 second exposure in cloudy sunset conditions with no filters I’m a long way from an expert but I’ve had great negs using rodinal with panF ( I thought DDX was a high speed film developer?)
I have had good exposures from it the past too. This time, I added too much exposure compensation. Next time, I think I will not use the standing development process. I think DDX is made for the Delta range.
I found it interesting that you used DDX at 1:9. I could not find any info on the massive dev chart or the Ilford data at that dilution. I wonder what steered you wrong; the 2 stops for the filter, the 35 minutes at 1:9, or your metering method. Maybe the reciprocity data wasn't correct. Time for some tests.
Massive Dev recommend 1:4. I choose to go with 1:9 because it’s less chemical. It was a mistake but I think it doable. Possibly develop for less time. Maybe 25 minutes?
@@StephenMilner 1:9 should definitely be doable, that's what I use with Tmax developer. Trying to work it out with stand development would require testing before using it for film with images you care about on it. As a guess, 1:9 with PanF at 20C, given 8 minutes at 1:4, might be in the 14 minute range with regular agitation.
I love the way the first 5 images turned out. I can see them printed rather small and mounted in a single panoramic frame.
I just ordered some Pan F. I'm looking forward to trying it out with my Rolleicord IV. Greetings from California !
Lovely set of images. Well done.
Many thanks!
Great Stephen Milner Video, thanks for sharing
Thank you Tony 🙏
Great video, as always. I also appreciate when you're talking about your metering process during the on-site locations -one of my favorite parts about your videos.
Thank you, glad you enjoy it 🙏
stephen:bull doesnt appreciate art
bull: this is bullsh!t man
fanstastic video and shots
Thanks, I think 🙏
comp at 21.00 was my favourite with the hedge zig zagging into the scene
Thanks 🙏
Another great video and great images. My favourite part was how happy you were when you started developing. I developed some sheets today and felt the same way.
Thank you Matt 🙏 I hope your sheets turned out well.
@@StephenMilner They look OK. I’m a bit worried about camera shake in the wind but there’s nothing I can do about that now.
I hope they are ok. Are you shooting large format?
@@StephenMilner .Yes, I’ve just started. I literally just opened my second box of film today. I shoot digital for work so wanted to try something that was a challenge but still photography.
Nice! :)
Have a good week!
You are doing great
Interesting, tbh I was expecting very different results from that !
I’ve had great shots in bright sun with no filters and a couple of good ones with 90 second exposure in cloudy sunset conditions with no filters
I’m a long way from an expert but I’ve had great negs using rodinal with panF ( I thought DDX was a high speed film developer?)
I have had good exposures from it the past too. This time, I added too much exposure compensation. Next time, I think I will not use the standing development process. I think DDX is made for the Delta range.
I found it interesting that you used DDX at 1:9. I could not find any info on the massive dev chart or the Ilford data at that dilution. I wonder what steered you wrong; the 2 stops for the filter, the 35 minutes at 1:9, or your metering method. Maybe the reciprocity data wasn't correct. Time for some tests.
Massive Dev recommend 1:4. I choose to go with 1:9 because it’s less chemical. It was a mistake but I think it doable. Possibly develop for less time. Maybe 25 minutes?
@@StephenMilner 1:9 should definitely be doable, that's what I use with Tmax developer. Trying to work it out with stand development would require testing before using it for film with images you care about on it. As a guess, 1:9 with PanF at 20C, given 8 minutes at 1:4, might be in the 14 minute range with regular agitation.
Thank you, I will have a play with it