I dunno. For both of these tests my thought was to use a film close to the shutter speed I was using, so I could confidently test it at f/16 and nearby apertures. I tested the 1/100th shutter speed the other day and todays test was of the 1/300th shutter speed.
For this test I chose a film that was new to me, Foma Retropan 320. I’m not sure that was a wise choice in this case. All the negatives came out looking very thin, but they scanned ok. To my eye, even the f/18 shots appear overexposed, but the negatives appear to be underexposed, if you can call it that with this film.
I find this Foma 320 to be a very odd film, I don’t really know what to say about it, other than I suspect it may do better in very low contrast lighting, which is quite rare around here. Or maybe it doesn’t like Artemisianol? I’ll try another developer next time.
If you’re familiar with it and recognize that I’ve abused it, I’d love to hear about it. I know it can work well for some situations, I’ve seen some interesting shots taken with it. I do have another roll of it, I think I’ll try that roll in a camera that’s more of a known quantity like my Chroma Six:9.
I do suspect that the 1/300th shutter speed on the Ica is pretty close to what it’s supposed to be. I think I’ll do another test. I know Cinestill XX does fine at ISO 250 and even way above that and it’s a film that I’m quite familiar with, so that if something looks weird, I should be able to figure out the cause (i hope).
I decided to leave most of these grouped together so that you can see the range of exposures in one panel.
These were all developed in Artemisianol for the usual 15 minutes at 86°F. and shot on Foma Retropan 320 with my Ica Icarette horizontal 6×6.
On further reflection, the image of Shaun’s house shot at f/16 isn’t too bad. I think I’m going to try some contrast and other manipulations in Lightroom to see if I can’t get something more interesting out of these. These shots were just scanned and inverted.