Learnings, B&W film, long exposure

 I'd done some long exposure photography on digital recently, here and here, and had lots of fun doing it. The intent had always been to try it on film, and I'm finally getting around to it. 

Even doing this digitally has its challenges. In most digital cameras the light meter looks through the lens, and if you've screwed on an ND filter, what it's seeing is pretty dark. Running the shutter speed down to the 30 second maximum might not show you anything on the back of the camera. It might be impossible for the camera to achieve focus, meaning either focus manually, or set the focus before screwing on the ND filter and hope nothing moves. The usual route is to guess at the camera settings and try it. Look at the results, tweak as necessary to achieve your artistic vision for the scene. This might take a while but it's good practice. Just make sure you know which way the tide is going.

Film is more difficult because the try till you get it right approach isn't going to work. One solution is to figure it out with a digital camera first, then translate the results to the film camera. Except, just because you're using ISO 100 film, for example, doesn't mean setting your digital camera to ISO 100 gets the same sensitivity result. An f stop setting on the digital camera might not mean the same thing as the f stop on a different lens on a film camera, and almost certainly won't if it's a medium format film camera.

Except I found a formula. Shutter speed times 2 to the ND filter number power. There. All clear? Good to go? Maybe not.

So, assuming I'm using my GW690, which has no light meter. I use my trusty phone app to discover that for a scene, the settings are 1/125 second at f16, which is not a surprising setting for a normal exposure of a subject on a sunny day. To do a long exposure of that scene I screw on an ND1000 filter, which is a 10 stop filter. Don't ask me why it's called 1000.  A whole lot less light gets through the filter to the film, unless I leave the shutter open longer. How much longer? 1/125 times 2 to the 10th, which is 8.2 seconds. The point 2 doesn't matter. I'd probably do 9 seconds, maybe 10, because film tends to deal with over exposure better than under exposure.

Now let's pretend that after experimenting with the digital camera, you know you aren't getting the effect you want, and you need 16 to 20 seconds of exposure. That's fine. Change to f22 to halve the amount of light coming into the lens, and leave the shutter open twice as long, 16 seconds in this case.

Except, in another film complication, there's a thing called reciprocity failure. For most normal exposure settings on a camera, the shutter speed and aperture f stop are related, in terms of how much light goes through the lens. A small opening for a longer time, can be the same as a bigger opening for a shorter time. (Yes, for the pedants out there I'm ignoring depth of field issues.) Double one, half the other, and it's the same amount of light, for most practical purposes. Except for film, when the light starts getting dim. 

Film needs a certain amount of light for the chemical reaction in the film to work. This varies with different film stocks, but after a second or so of exposure, (which would typically mean a night time exposure, or an ND filter exposure, or some funky intentional camera movement photo) this needs to be taken into account. Going from a 2 second to a 4 second exposure might not be twice the amount of light, you might need 6 seconds to give the film enough light to react.

In case you missed it, long exposure photography works best if there's something that moves, typically water or clouds, and something that's fixed, like a pier or a building. I wanted to get out and try it, and had a spot in mind. The only hitch in the plans was that it was clear blue sky. I got involved in something else for a while, and headed out when it started to cloud over. I was thinking some cloud motion with a blue sky background would be good. 

Except I left it too long. By the time I got there, got set up, tested the exposure and composition with the digital camera, it had pretty well clouded over and was getting windy and cold. I was glad I wore the parka. At this point I didn't know the formula, and used the digital settings plus a bit of by guess and by golly, knowing I could do some compensation during the digitization process. The film is Acros II ISO 100, which doesn't especially have a reciprocity failure issue, which does simplify things.

As a minor technical note, there's two ways of the shutter staying open. One is Bulb mode, where it stays open as long as you hold the button down, which had better mean you're using a cable release or else you're moving the camera and destroying your image. The other is T mode, meaning push the button and it stays open till you change the shutter speed. Which is what my GW690 has. The trick is to cover the lens with a hat, then reach under it to change the shutter. AND THEN DON'T FORGET TO CHANGE IT BACK FOR THE NEXT EXPOSURE. Learned that one the hard way.

1. Here's what the scene looks like with a normal exposure. This is the Bow River near the Ivor Strong bridge. Not going to win any awards with this, but that's not the point.

2. This is actually a minute long exposure at f22. I wanted to smooth the water out as much as possible. See how much better the reflections show up in the water? It would be a much more interesting photo if the clouds had cooperated.

3. Under the bridge was much darker, and with some math in my head figured I needed 4 times as much light, so went for a 4 minute exposure. Neither of these images needed exposure tweaking in NLP or Lightroom so I guessed about right.

4. Then over to Mallard Point to finish the roll. By now it was getting colder and darker, so I hand held the digital for 30 seconds just to see what the light would be like, and figured the film would need 90 seconds. This looks a bit dark, and yet there's no detail in the snow. Maybe if I wanted to be really fancy I could mask it in Lightroom and play with it a bit, but the odds of anything good coming of it are small. Notice you can't see the birds that flew through the scene.

5. Just to amuse you, here's the digital colour version, 30 seconds at ISO 200.

I'm thinking about other places to try long exposures on film. 

V Island beaches on Gold 200

We wanted to go somewhere warmer than Calgary and get away from winter for a bit. Much as we love New Zealand and want to go back, there was still enough uncertainty about travel that we didn't want to ante up that much money. Having a thousand dollars held by West Jet because a flight was cancelled isn't so bad. We know we can use that. Having something on the order of $10K to $15K held by an airline that might not be flying to Canada again is a different proposition entirely.

Vancouver Island is about the warmest winter place in Canada. We hadn't been to Sooke, and decided to stay in an Airbnb to explore the coast up to Port Renfrew. The house was huge and perfect for us. The flight experience was about as good as it gets, and no problem with the camera film. The car rental company upgraded us. We managed to sneak in a lunch with one of Linda's buddies she'd worked with for a long time. 

Most of you probably know it's kind of rainy in BC year round. We were prepared for that, with temperatures typically in the 'wear a sweater under the rain jacket' range. Seeing lots of liquid water is a treat, even if it complicates carrying a film camera.

I took the digital with 3 of my most used lenses, plus the GW690 with a bunch of Kodak Gold 200 and a couple rolls of Acros II 100. I took along a laptop, but hadn't intended to edit photos during the trip. It makes for a heavy carry on. The problem with my film cameras is that they are not water resistant. There's no battery or electronics to short out, but there's lots of delicate mechanical mechanisms that probably wouldn't like salty water at all. 

So the film camera lived in the bag most of the time. As did the other two lenses, and some other stuff. It slows down the beach walking even more than the coarse pebble beaches. Some of the places for the best digital photos (the long exposure, the Potholes, the water fall, the beach rocks) I either didn't think of the film camera, or didn't want to risk it getting wet. Plus there's the whole having to put the bag down somewhere mostly dry, open it up, dig out the other camera, put the digital somewhere, get the photo(s) and then put it all back again. For the long exposure, it was me and the camera bag on a big rock, surrounded by water. To say I was careful about putting on the ND filter and all the other changes is an understatement, and even with the care I still got my feet wet. I would have liked to try the long exposure on film after doing digital to get the settings, but the tide was coming in fast. Typically it was too damp to be carrying the film camera on a strap. I even put the digital in a plastic bag for part of one walk.

There are, of course, some photos that are almost duplicates between film and digital. I'm not deliberately creating images for the purposes of comparing film to digital. That ship has sailed, as one of my managers liked to say. It might happen because I've used the digital as a sophisticated light meter, or I get the digital, and decide I want a film version as well. The portrait photo below is one of those. The photographer in the photo was amused that anyone was still doing film. 

If you've been following along, you know I took that camera and that film to Yukon last September. I nearly swooned when I saw the photos. That film was PERFECT for Yukon colours. Not so much for BC beach driftwood. I think many of them came out a bit more orange than I liked, and playing with the settings didn't seem to do much good. Even though I typically expose for the shadows, and let the highlights take care of themselves, I'm thinking I underexposed several of these, leading them to be a bit more orangey red than real life.

1. Like this one. Playing with the settings in Negative Lab Pro got weird very quickly.

2.

3. The colour here is mostly good, but Linda's purple outfit is considerably more vibrant. I was trying to expose for her face, but I don't think the light meter is that precise.

4.

5.

6.

7. I was fascinated by how the wind has shaped that tree.

8.

9. The promised portrait. I asked these nice people if I could capture them, and did film and digital. This image is cropped in a bit, and I should have got a bit closer. There are subtle differences between the digital and film versions.  I should have moved the square of whatever it is out of the left side of the image. Live and learn.

10. The GW690 has a fixed 90mm lens, about the same as a 40mm on a 35mm camera. The zooming happens with your feet. The ocean is right behind me, and I do mean right behind me. A big wave came in and I had wet feet again. Good thing the Airbnb had a hair dryer. I was chatting with another photographer and showed him the digital versions. He's been back several times to get that photo because often there isn't a place to stand at all, with the waterfall going straight into the ocean for most of the tidal cycle.

11. Part of the Sooke Potholes gorge, giving just a hint of the fabulous light I had. This is cropped in quite a bit to get rid of some lens flare and a stupid branch in the upper left of the image.

12.

13.

14. This is part of the Galloping Goose trail built on an old railway line. This is distinctly more orangey red than in real life.

15. What you can see of the bridge deck is considerably closer to the real colour. 

16

Overall I'm glad I took the camera. I quite like some of the images, even if they don't quite overwhelm me like the Yukon ones did. I'm wishing I'd taken it out for some of the forest photos to see how it dealt with dim light and all the deep rich fabulous greens and browns. But then, those digital photos were at ISO 1600, f2.8 and 1/100 of a second, and were still a bit dim. If I've done the math right I'd be down about 1/8 or 1/4 second and I wasn't carrying a tripod.

I'm coming to realize that I need to decide if a photo ramble is to expose film, or digital. It's hard for me to do both. If I was going to be doing those beach rambles with just a film camera, I might still be there.

You may have got here following a link from Facebook. I'm mostly taking a break from Facebook for a while. If you don't want to miss any posts you can leave a comment asking to be added to my blog notification email list. Or send the request to keith at nucleus dot com.

A photographic discovery

Readers who have been following along between this blog, and my personal one, know I've been sorting through the packets of old photo prints and negatives we had in a box in the basement. You have such a box as well, don't lie to me!

In looking for something else I came across the box and was diverted for a while looking through the prints. But there were negatives as well, and since I've been capturing current negatives, I wondered what the old ones would be like, and how they would turn out.

So in light of what I discovered, I need to clarify old. I knew we had a wedding album from Linda's parents, and various photos of me that older relatives had sent. But I was thinking the oldest negatives would be mine from the late-80s till whenever we got the first digital camera. Which to some of you young whipersnappers, that seems really old. Humph. There's days my brain still thinks it's mid-80's and wonders what's happened.

But then I came across some negatives that were an odd size, and I could see a really old truck in one of them. After digitizing, and I'm glad I got the glass plates because they wouldn't have fit in the carriers, we were amazed to see photos from the very late 1940's or early 1950's through to the early 60's. We think. We're checking with some of Linda's aunts to see if they can shed any light on who some of these people are.

One set of negatives is 127 film, and the other is 120 Kodak Safety film, in two different sizes, 2.25 inch square, and 2.25" x 3 3/8 (8.5 x 5.5 cm) which is essentially a modern 3:2 ratio. I'm guessing that 3 different cameras were used, but no idea what they might be.  

We have no idea how the negatives came to be in our box of photos. Neither of us have any memory of them being given to us, and we've never seen prints of them. We're guessing it happened maybe mid to late 90's. I've put the photos in an online folder and sent a link to Linda's relatives, and the feedback so far is they love them! Which makes it worthwhile.

As a technical note for photographers, I didn't do anything special to these negatives. Fortunately they were stored flat in the box. They were all photographed in a batch and had essentially no processing in Negative Lab Pro. I'm a bit surprised they look as good as they do.

This is Linda's parents, but we aren't sure if the baby is Linda or her older brother. The negatives are in no order, so we can't rely on context. If her brother, this is from late 1953 if it's a christening photo. There are several others in this sequence, including Linda's grandparents. Most of the photos are essentially family snapshots, with a few posed portraits.

We believe this is Linda as a little girl, early 60's. In one of the sequence she is posing with a stuffed toy that she has no memory of, so it's possible it could be someone else. Again, nothing special was done to clean up the file. At this point I was more interested in seeing what we had, than in spending a ton of time cleaning up dust spots and negative flaws. If some of our family ask for a version they can print, or a really clean digital version then I'll take another image with a better camera, and clean that up. 

The truck I first noticed. If this were one of my photos I was editing, I'd probably crop out the bottom third of it, the rocks and brighter grass not adding much. But I'm thinking of this more as historical photo journalism.  I've no idea what year or model the truck is.

By today's standards, none of these photos are particularly sharp, but that's to be expected. That they exist at all is kind of amazing. I'd like to post more of them, but want to give family the time to look them over and identify who's who. We're pretty sure some of the people are still alive, and I don't want to go publishing an old photo of them without permission. One of the photos has Linda's dad posing near a fire truck with some of what we believe are his colleagues. I've reached out to a person running a memorial page for that fire department to see if they are interested in the photos. I'd be astonished if not. The descendants of those people might be interested in seeing the photo.

I've written a bit about photographs, and what happens to them when the photographer passes away, and the differences in that process for printed and digital photos. The digital version of photos are ephemeral. They can disappear in the blink of a hard drive crash, a forgotten password, or a software update. Prints (in a book or framed) will last for generations with a bit of care, and can be looked at by anyone with functional eyeballs. Negatives can exist for the same amount of time, but generally can't be looked at by an ordinary person and be 'seen'. They need to be converted to a positive, whether through a traditional darkroom process, a scanner, or a digital camera. Assuming I live another 30 years, and that box stays in a cool dry environment, and somehow gets passed to another photographer, they could pull out the negatives and get essentially the same photos, since my digital versions will probably have vanished. Then they start the whole "who are these people" process over again. Maybe I should put a note with the negatives...

These negatives are mostly on the order of 70 years old. An eyeblink in terms of other historical documents, middle aged for analog photographs, but are before the beginning of digital time. The first digital photo is from 1957 and was scanned from an analog photo. The first digital camera was in 1975. The iPhone 3 in 2008 really kicked off digital photography. (Thank about that a moment, the smart phone is only 14 years old, or so, and has completely revolutionized our society, to the point of replacing those reels of tickets so people could take a number for faster service.) At that point no serious photographer would be using a digital camera because even 35mm film was light years better.

There are a few images from back then available now, having been migrated from computer to computer, probably mainly for historical interest rather than artistic merit. We have no way of knowing for sure, but I would not be surprised to find there are more 'lost' images, than what exist now. Just think of how computers have evolved in a few decades, and it's inevitable that photos and documents will be left behind, essentially inaccessible. 

I'm delighted to have a peek back in time, seeing what people looked like when young, seeing what else is in the photo that wouldn't be noticed at the time, such as vehicles, decorations, homes (I can only imagine how hideous that wallpaper was in real life), and general background. In several of the photos one of the people is holding a cigarette, you'd never see that now. 

Xmas lights on 120 Cinestill 800T

Twas the season. Once upon a time I picked up some 120 Cinestill 800T thinking I'd do some city night photography with it. Then I forgot about it, though it was in the fridge right beside the cheese compartment that I look at nearly every day. Then I got another roll because, well, like I said.

If you're curious about film, keep reading. If you don't care about film technicalities, scroll down to the photos.

We had a long really cold spell here, and I wasn't thrilled about taking the film cameras out in it. They're metal, and would get cold quickly. The film would get cold shortly after that, and I started thinking about what temperature film gets brittle. I didn't find any definite answers, but the suggestions lined up pretty close to how cold it was outside, which was well into minus WTF territory. Being honest, when it's that cold it's easy to stay home and read or watch a movie.

The first evening it warmed up to something mostly civilized, like maybe -10C or something, I had the film loaded and away I went. Linda came along to spot as I drove around our neighbourhood. There were not as many light displays as I had hoped. Halloween seemed much better.

Eight photos goes quick, and then we got to the Griswold's near Michelle's place. I thought I had one more on the roll. I sighed big time when I put the exposed roll in the fridge, and saw the second roll. Had I realized... At that point I didn't want to go out again, and did want to see what the exposed film looked like before I went and exposed more. If I'd made a terrible mistake I wanted to know. This is expensive film, about $22 a roll to buy, and another $11 to develop. 

Anyway. The fun, or the downside of Cinestill 800T is that it's had the remjet layer removed, which means that some light can go through the film, exposing it like usual, and then bounce off the back of the camera and expose the film some more. This leads to a halo effect around lights, particularly neon lights, and particularly red lights. If you like it, you're in. If you don't like it, you'll use something else.

Exposure at night on film using a camera that doesn't have an exposure meter is something to be careful about. Normally I use an iPhone light meter, but occasionally bring the digital camera along to be a sophisticated light meter. I'm pretty sure I did that this time.

These were taken with the GW690, and the exposures were 1 second. Exposures longer than that, but shorter than about 5 seconds are a pain on this camera because it has a T mode, but not a B mode. But one second was easy, so it worked out really well. Normally I expose for the shadows and let the highlights take care of themselves, but for this I exposed for the brightest part of the lighting. I didn't mind if the sky and shadows were dark if the lights were right, and figured if it was too bit dark I could fix it in Lightroom.

There were only slight tweaks in Negative Lab Pro, typically Cinematic mode, and WB to Cinestill, with maybe a bit of tweaking to exposure and brightness. All I did in Lightroom was to rotate a few of the images slightly, and remove some dust spots.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

I like how the colours came out, and the halation effect is interesting. I'll have to get up a night expedition with buddies and find a place to expose the other roll. Downtown, perhaps, or skyline, or maybe the Ogden industrial park. Maybe if I'm really organized I'll expose a roll of Gold 200 at the same time to see what I think. 

I've been using the Lomograph film carriers to hold the film as I take the photo of it. This has been a bit of a pain, especially if the film curls. I was absolutely convinced that one brand of film was slightly narrower than standard, making it almost impossible to hold them. Maybe I'll revisit those with the glass. Sometimes the film being curved can affect how the digitizing photo is taken. 

One way of keeping the photo absolutely flat is to sandwich it between two sheets of glass. Except if you use ordinary window glass you'll get ugly rings showing up because of how light diffracts through glass. But there's special glass that doesn't do this, and when I say special I mean expensive. I found a place that had some off cuts so got a couple pieces cheap. 

The process goes like this. Wash your hands with soap, really thoroughly. Wipe the glass, both sides, each piece, with a microfibre cloth. Use an eyeglass lens cleaning solution if there are smudges and make sure it's dry with no streaks. Take film out of the plastic sheath they came from the lab in, blow it off or dust with an anti-static brush. Lay as many pieces of film on the glass as will fit. Put the second piece of glass on top, being careful not to move the two pieces in relation to one another. The film strips don't have to be lined up in relation to one another. Place them on the light source. Tweak focus, take first photo. Now, move the entire light source, NOT THE PANES OF GLASS, so that the next photo is in the view finder, click, repeat. Putting film on the glass is much faster than loading in the carrier. 

In my digitization process I do not include the border, or the sprocket holes on 35mm film, but with the glass plate method I could if I wanted to. Doing this means being careful about your exposure because the camera could 'see' light directly from the light source. Sometimes white balance can be tricky in Negative Lab Pro if the border is included in the image.

I first experimented with some black and white film to see how it worked out, and to try to stitch multiple frames together to create a larger image. The process worked really well, though I didn't line up the edges quite perfectly, so instead of a print 4x3 feet, it would be about 4 x 2.5 feet. Not that that particular photo is worth it, but others might be, and I'm thinking some of the Tombstone photos. However, I hadn't taken any particular care to clean the film, so the dust spots were were insane! Note to self and all. If I had to print that one, I'd clean the film and redo the whole process.

Will I buy more Cinestill? I'm not sure. If I had a photo project where I wanted that halo effect, then of course I would. I'm looking forward to exposing the other roll and comparing to Gold 200. 

Will I continue on using glass rather than the carriers for digitizing film? Yes! It's way faster than fussing with the carriers, especially for curly film. It just occurred to me that I could put other materials between the glass with the film, like coloured gels, or two pieces of film.

Flic Film Visions3 250D review

Recently I started carrying my Canon 7 around most places I went. The idea was to keep an eye out for interesting scenes. I've found that the camera I'm carrying influences what I 'see'. While there's been times I'd see something and say to myself that I wished I had a good camera on hand, mostly when I don't have a camera I don't think about photos. The Canon 7 is small enough that carrying it around isn't a burden.

During a photo road trip last summer I'd stopped at Film Experience in Longview, Alberta, and picked up several different kinds of film when I bought the camera. I exposed a roll of the Visions3 back in May 2022, and loved the results, but mostly I was about putting an inexpensive roll of film through the camera. I wanted to try it again with autumn colours. 

During another road trip I picked up another roll, and exposed it October 2022 during the peak of autumn colour. So far so good. What I'd forgotten was that the lab I use has a 2 roll minimum for processing this film. It needs the ECN-2 process, rather than the regular C-41. Oops.

I wasn't going to drive out to Longview for one roll of film. Neither could I find any film in Calgary that needed that processing. I ended up buying a bunch of film to get the free shipping, and it arrived in a few days. Now I have lots of film for both cameras, probably enough for all winter, maybe longer. 

In the meantime, I'd put a couple rolls of Kodak Gold 200 through the camera, and loved the results! I finished those off, and loaded a second Visions3. By now the autumn colours were essentially gone, and I worked some street and nature scenes. I got stalled with a half dozen exposures to go. 

Then I was watching a video about a person running a weekly film contest. Every Saturday the idea was to submit a photo taken within the previous week. The logistics of joining that were pretty daunting, in terms of exposing a roll and getting it back from the lab within a week. But something he said struck me, about getting the photo you wanted to send in, and still having some of the roll left. Just go shoot it! Experiment. Play, take photos of anything. So I set the camera up on our front lattice in the evening and tried light trails. 

When it comes to comparing Visions3 to Kodak Gold 200, I don't see a lot of difference. Give the films lots of light and the images come out with bright, and true to life colours. Exposure gets a bit more tricky in more subdued light.

But first, for new readers that care about the background details. If you just want to see the photos scroll down. I'm using a Canon 7 with a Canon 50mm f1.4 lens. Mostly I expose for the shadows with an iPhone meter and let the highlights take care of themselves. The lab is Paul Stack, and I think he does a great job. I digitize the negatives using a Canon T6i with a Canon 100mm f2.8 L macro lens. Inverting from negative to positive is with Negative Lab Pro (v 2.3.0 and yes I know there are updates available, and that whole thing is another issue entirely), and I generally tend to have a light hand on editing. I like the image to look like film, and I don't try to make it look like a digital image. My thinking is that if you want it to look digital, the capture it on digital, and if you want it to look like film, capture it on film. Then into Lightroom to deal with any dust spots or hairs, cropping, or correcting rotation. All this practice and I often still hold the camera slightly rotated off horizontal.

The hardest thing about the whole process is loading the cut film strips into the carrier to go onto the light source. These two rolls were slightly cupped from edge to edge, making it a bit tricky to load. I've been thinking about getting some small sheets of Anti Newton Ring glass but it's stupidly expensive at the places I've looked so far. Since the last film I digitized was 35m, the camera was already in the right spot on the copy stand. A moment to double check focus and I was off.

When I said I used a light hand during Negative Lab Pro editing, I'm not kidding. Play with the white point a bit too much and yellow turns orange and the sky gets really dark. As a photo that might look nice, but anyone living in Calgary knows the trees don't go quite that colour. As shot, the colour tends to be quite vivid. I missed capturing our red peony with this film. I've got another two rolls of it, so maybe I'll wait till it blooms next spring and capture that.

1. We had a fabulous autumn! We get lots of gold and yellow in the trees, and this film picks that up wonderfully. The film loves lots of light.

2. Straight up through a different tree, hoping to catch the glow, and maybe get a nice composition of dark branches. The colour is right, though the glow didn't quite show up as I hoped.

3. A street scene with some of the trees changing colour.

4. This looked almost a little lurid without any processing at all. The only change was to change the Tones filter to Cinematic Rich. Nothing in Lightroom.

5. A scene in South Glenmore park. This nailed the colour and light.

6. A bike pump track. I think that's what it's called. I liked the red stripe and waves of pavement. I could have spent longer looking for composition, but some kids showed up wanting to put the track to the intended purpose. I was almost there a couple days ago, hoping to get interesting shadows in the snow on the waves, but it was way too cold to walk there.

7. A view into Fish Creek.

8. Near the sports centre formerly called Lindsay Park/Talisman/Repsol and now it's some name I can't remember. I was out for a walk with a dear friend who was housesitting another friend. The leaves here were starting to fade, and the bridge really is that ugly rust colour. The Calgary tower is exactly the right colour.

9. The dear friend posing. I am loving how this film captured the light, and treated her skin. I think this is one of my better portraits. Photos like this are why I love using film.

10. I think this is south Glenmore park again.

11. In darker shadow beside the reservoir, but the trees still catching some light.

12. Onto another roll, during a walk just south of downtown with overcast skies.

13. A spontaneous photo. Again, I'm loving how the light is falling on their faces.

14. Inside the library, right beside the photography section. I wasn't sure how the exposure would work, or treat the artificial lighting. I had to fix the shadows a bit, but seems quite acceptable.

15. A twilight winter (duh!) scene in Fish Creek near bridge 3.

16. I think I just followed a couple that cleared off just enough space to eat.

17. Caught a wind gust blowing up as I walked along the creek. About here it started getting really cold and I bailed out of the walk.

18. The promised light trails from just in front of our house. The is the neighbour's front yard UFO landing pad; the one in the back yard is even brighter.

19.

20.

21.

Overall I love the colour! However, the ECN-2 processing is more expensive, and there's that two roll minimum. Once I do the two rolls next year, I probably won't get any more. For sure I wouldn't get anymore if I could reliably get the Gold 200 in 35mm. I bought out all that Walmart had, and I hate shopping at Walmart. They didn't think they would get anymore since it was already back ordered.

What's in the camera now, you ask? Black and white Acros II 100. I got a bunch of it, just barely expired for cheap.