You could then either scan the negatives yourself, or have them scanned and printed for you. Lots of Pnetters do it on a regular basis and would be willing to offer guidance if you go this route. If you want to use tri-x on an ongoing basis, and keep costs down, and have an adventuresome spirit, you might consider developing your own is pretty easy and a lot less expensive than sending them out. I did want to add a couple of thoughts though. I agree with Lex's comments about the film probably being improperly developed. Hi Rajiv - Sorry to learn of your misfortune. Ilford XP2 Super is a better choice for conventional darkroom printing to silver gelatin papers - the Ilford film has a more neutral base, compared with the heavier orange mask of the Kodak film. These films are easy to scan, so the scans can be converted to true monochrome easily and printed. Some labs do a pretty good job, but most struggle to get neutral prints - most are slightly tinted blue, green, red, etc. These films can be handy for processing at any good color process minilab, but the print results can vary. There are two or three monochrome films that can be processed in C-41, same as color negative film: Ilford XP2 Super Kodak BW400CN I'm not sure whether Fuji's version is still available. Usually the C-41 process would completely strip out any image. I'm really surprised there is any image at all on the negatives. Tri-X is a traditional silver halide b&w film and must be processed in chemicals intended for that type of film. They should have sent it out for appropriate processing, or just told you they weren't equipped to process it. If Walgreens processed your Tri-X they screwed up.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |