One of the major differences between film and digital photography are the stories one can tell. In the digital realm to tell someone that you underexposed 10 or 12 photos 2 or 3 stops without noticing just means you are not very good at what your doing.
Alternatively, mistakenly putting a 50 ASA film in the camera and metering for a 400ASA film will extract humorous groans from those who have also done it. It becomes an more interesting tale when you compound the mistakes. In this picture which I shot two weeks ago I never noticed that the film was not the much faster HP5 that I thought it to be and I consequently metered and developed it as if it was. But what makes the tale interesting for those who like such things are the extraordinary details. Such as because the film was over ten years out of date I was reluctant to buy new developer and the internet said that Rodinal film developer could be kept for a few years before it went off. I had an open bottle of it that had been hanging around for about a year and a half so I thought why not give it a go, even though the chemical’s colour had shifted from light amber to almost black.
The fixer (just as old) smelt a little, but what the hell.
The end result is that the chemicals did their job and properly developed the film , but due to the massive underexposure when I shot the film the negatives are seriously thin and it took a slow 3200 dpi scan to get a sort of image.
Considering everything, a 4-second handheld exposure, terrible lighting conditions, gross underexposure, old out-of-date film and failing chemicals, I was surprised to get anything and yet I still got a picture. And it looks like a very old photograph straight out of the camera, which is cool.
Film, it’s amazing stuff.
Bronica SQa, 50mm wide angle, f4, 4 second exposure, Ilford Pan F, ISO 50.