Hardly grainy at all by comparison
Gerard asking me about my work in the 1980s
Jeremy stopping by
Virginia coming up to 88
Cool but expecting better weather
Snowbird
Bad Negative Appreciation
Even in August . . .
Windy rain turning to snow
In the hay
River Thames on a dull day in October 1985
Appreciating the Mona Lisa
Ice in the harbour
Regina at 90
Fox sparrow enjoying a bit of late-winter sun
Belvedere burnt out
My niece on her bike
Bug in the suds
Tidal pool
What spring shows
More winter things revealed
I have to ask the experts
Jay
Morning moon three days ago
This morning's breakfast visitor
Sunday morning sish ice breaking up
Wally the Wasp
Another shot of that song sparrow
Flicker feeding
First shot on the roll
A goldfinch hanging around
This morning's visitor
E and her new puppy
Jeff
March 1999
Siskin eating his sunflower seed
Dins
Pine siskins eating and squabbling
He was Peej then; he's Patty now. Or Patrick.
Will at one
Goldfinch at the sunflower seeds
Cat, box, bottle of Dock. . .
M in my office
Another shot from the decade-old film
K's visit
See also...
Keywords
Authorizations, license
-
Visible by: Everyone -
All rights reserved
-
92 visits
How grainy can it get?


I had an old, expired roll of Fuji NPS 160 (expired in 2002!) in my
Kodak Retina 1a camera for more than six months when I finally
finished it and got it developed this week. When I put it in the
camera I knew it was the 160 film, so I was shooting it at 80 or so,
and getting pretty good exposures. But by the time I was half-way
through the roll, I forgot what film it was, and thought it was a
fairly recent roll of Fuji 400, so I was shooting it at something
around ISO 300. That stop-and-a-half difference made a big difference
in the exposure. This shot, for instance, was very much
under-exposed.
But R has such a sweet smile that the picture's not bad anyway. (I
did quite a bit of stuff -- dusting, burning, dodging, de-saturating,
etc. -- to this picture to get the best from a very bad negative.)
Kodak Retina 1a camera for more than six months when I finally
finished it and got it developed this week. When I put it in the
camera I knew it was the 160 film, so I was shooting it at 80 or so,
and getting pretty good exposures. But by the time I was half-way
through the roll, I forgot what film it was, and thought it was a
fairly recent roll of Fuji 400, so I was shooting it at something
around ISO 300. That stop-and-a-half difference made a big difference
in the exposure. This shot, for instance, was very much
under-exposed.
But R has such a sweet smile that the picture's not bad anyway. (I
did quite a bit of stuff -- dusting, burning, dodging, de-saturating,
etc. -- to this picture to get the best from a very bad negative.)
- Keyboard shortcuts:
Jump to top
RSS feed- Latest comments - Subscribe to the comment feeds of this photo
- ipernity © 2007-2025
- Help & Contact
|
Club news
|
About ipernity
|
History |
ipernity Club & Prices |
Guide of good conduct
Donate | Group guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use | Statutes | In memoria -
Facebook
Twitter
Sign-in to write a comment.