Compendium 12 – Lost Relevance


This is Agfa Scala 160–but traditionally developed in D-76, instead of R100.  (Yes, it is somewhat a waste of the film, but I lost a roll’s worth of developer anyway…)

Granted, the negatives do not look as cool as the positives would have, but in this day and age, I can’t help but wonder if the relevance of transparency film has really passed.  Slide film is more difficult to expose properly, harder to scan, and certainly more difficult to develop. Given the ability to post-process (adjust blacks and contrast, mainly…) the resulting look is nearly identical.  Been there, done that…but otherwise hard to make the argument for reversal developing.


Sometimes in photography, you have to document the sad with the happy…

And sometimes when you really want a snack (and can’t have one…) you get quite sad.

The Key on the Kite

…Otherwise known as “accidental scientific discovery”.


Did you know that Eastman 5222 could be pushed to ISO 800?

Well I didn’t…at least not until I shot and developed this roll.  Which I assumed was either Ilford HP5+, or Ilford Pan F+.  (Yes, one was ISO 400, and the other ISO 50).  Anyway, I was pretty sure it was HP5+, so I shot and developed it at ISO 800.  Using the Neopan 400 times.  Because I also had a roll of that in there.

(Listen don’t ask—My system sucks…I know that).

Suffice it to say, this is Eastman 5222 pushed to, and developed at ISO 800.  These photos have zero artistic merit, but I thought I’d put them up here for the public record.  They are developed in D76 1:1–if you want to do so, use the Fuji Neopan 400 @ ISO 800 times.

I hope that even makes sense.

The Great Preset Test

Very excited to be able to bring these to you today (forgot we even did them…)

One of these is actual Ilford HP5+, and the other is VSCO’s idea of what HP5+ should look like…adjusted by me to actually look like Ilford HP5+.


Can you pick them out?

Which one do you prefer?

One was taken on the X-H1 with 35mm f/1.4 lens (53mm equivalent) the other on the M6 with Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 lens, and subsequently adjusted for equivalent FOV.  The only thing I can’t tell you is the aperture used in each case (as I wasn’t actually paying attention…) but I think it was similar.

In any case, one was certainly a lot easier than the other…