I had 2 rolls I managed to destroy by using oldish C-41 developer. The first was a roll of a St Patrick’s Day parade on Velvia 50, and the second a roll for expired film day, Fuji Super-G 400 (exp 1999). The developer was exhausted, the blix was fine, so the rolls came out nice and clean. Bummer. I’ll have to make up a couple rolls in the next weeks.
For this roll I used my Hasselblad 500 c/m with the Zeiss Sonnar 150mm and a red filter. I purposely was trying to find cool looking clouds, hoping the red filter would bring out some of the detail and contrast. I shot on Acros 100 and developed in Rodinal 1+100 semi-stand. I hadn’t tried this method with this emulsion before and the negatives turned out very dense, much denser than expected considering the dilute developer. My semi-stand routine is to do a few gentle inversions at the start, then again at 20 and 40 mins, with a total of 1 hr development. Scans via my Epson V700, and because of the dense negatives, I did have to do some level adjustments, but that is about all.
Thin
Puffy
Sun Rays
Super Thin
Spring Snow
52 rolls 
Hi, I’ve tried stand development with Fomapan 100 (120) in Rodinal and have been pleased with the results. I like the light and dark of your Spring Snow image tho 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks, I’ve had great results with Rodinal, and even with Acros in the past, I just hadn’t done a semi-stand w/1+100. I think I probably overexposed some because I took incident meter readings, adjusted for red filter factor, then pointed up at the sky. Better dense negatives than thin ones though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great, more nice trees 🙂
LikeLike
Thanks, I love my trees. My people shots all got cleaned by the blix. I think nature was jealous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For thin negatives the scans look pretty good.
LikeLike
The negatives are much denser than normal actually. Which, with film. is better than thin negatives.
LikeLike