Last night I developed my first 2 rolls of Tri-X. I went with Kodak's recommended times, for every step. I decided to create a seperate journal, actually more of a log, to keep just tecnical data from each time I develop film, along with the details of the results. That way I will be able to refer back to different results I got and how I got them without having to search through the text of the journal. Good idea, eh? So the 2 rolls I developed look great to me, especially since I don't know enough to say otherwise. There are images on the film. That's what I know. I will have my darkroom set up in about a week, so then I'll get to really see how they look, but for now, I will just be checking them out with my scanner. I spent $900 on the Canon FS4000US over 2 months ago and not only have I hardly had a chance (or reason) to use it, but I don't really know how to use it yet. Oh well, time to learn. Unfortunately, scanned images just seem less real to me still. I am not going to go off on a digital vs. traditional process, but digital still seems somewhat of a novelty to me. Great for posting images on the web or sending them via email, etc... but not for printing and display. Then again, I'm just not good at it yet, things will probably change a lot when I have more experience.

So, I scanned a shot off the Tri-X I shot with the Minilux. Here is the result:


I basically scanned it with default settings in Vuescan (since I have yet to learn about white and black points) then tweaked the curves and levels (which I also haven't learned yet, but I truly think I amproved the image just by playing around with it) for about a half hour, then I finished it off by cloning out a few dust specks and resizing it for the web.

Yes, I am very aware that it is not a very interesting photo, nor is it very well composed, but at least I think I got the exposure right. Oh, actually the camera did that. So the picture sucks, but at least I've finally really gotten started... I shot, develeloped and scanned the first image off my first roll of Tri-X.

In case you didn't recognize (or have never been there), this was actually shot at Disney's California Adventure. A relatively boring park, but Disney always does a really good job with their sets and details, so there are places in the park you can shoot and other's would be hard pressed to realize it was a set. An example comes to mind of a shot of their waterfall (on the other side of the rocks you see in the background of the mill) that some guy posted on photo.net and people responded quite well to, until he revealed where it was taken. If you look closely near the right edge of the frame on the trestle you can barely make out a raft full of people on their way to getting soaked in the rapids, compliments of the big mouse himself.


I just realized that posting images directly to the journal may not be a good idea. So I'm going to link to them in the future, but the first one gets to stay. I'm not sure how to do this well yet, but I will just have to figure it out.