some of the Polaroids are incredible. scanned at hi-res they are impressive. the B&Ws done at chitzen itza are great. too bad i didn't just use the Polaroid Land 210- and fore go the other 6 or 7 cameras i schlepped around there. the color polaroids are not as good as the B&W; but scanned and grayscaled they look better. each camera i used got different results. these fotos below are NOT the best of the lot, but i like the effects. especially the double exposure, which was a happy accident. 
i processed about 9 rolls of b&w film last week; it took hours; unfortunately i tried using my plastic spools [which are supposed to handle 35mm to 120 film] and the 120 film did not fit. i should've just rolled it back up and waited till i got to my stainless steel spools- but, i threw the roll of film in the cannister and developed it, which ruined a good bit of it all. instead of 3 good BIG negatives of chitzen itza which were on the roll, i got maybe 1 clear one. some older shots from switzerland and elsewhere were on the same roll, and some ruined. c'est la vie. live and learn. patience is indeed a virtue- and one i do not have!
i processed about 9 rolls of b&w film last week; it took hours; unfortunately i tried using my plastic spools [which are supposed to handle 35mm to 120 film] and the 120 film did not fit. i should've just rolled it back up and waited till i got to my stainless steel spools- but, i threw the roll of film in the cannister and developed it, which ruined a good bit of it all. instead of 3 good BIG negatives of chitzen itza which were on the roll, i got maybe 1 clear one. some older shots from switzerland and elsewhere were on the same roll, and some ruined. c'est la vie. live and learn. patience is indeed a virtue- and one i do not have!this week began cutting, sleeving, and scanning the negatives which takes even longer than developing them as i scan them between 1200-2400 dpi. some of the stuff was great BUT i've been noticing that a lot of my fotos have been washed out looking- as if the ASA setting, or the f/stops, shutter speeds, were wrong for the shots- not a high enough contrast.
then... i saw a documentary on Ansel Adams on PBS the other night and the nickel [quarter, nowadays] dropped. for one of his most famous shots he used a red filter to get higher contrast/dramatic effect... and always did a lot of dodging and burning, too- to bring out certain areas of the fotos. i always used the red filter [magenta, actually] on my enlarger when printing, to get better B&W contrast, and did indeed do some dodging and burning when printing- but i haven't been printing for the past decade- i've only been scanning negatives and posting fotos online- so i completely forgot about all that... and using filters!
so, i went and dug out some filters i'd bought in brocante/brockenstube in europe- and tried them on two of my better SLRs and Voila! they all fit. i had red, orange and yellow, some clear ones, and also found some dark gray [polarizing] lenses that came with one of the cameras i bought there. i plan to use the filters to finish off the film on those 2 cameras and check the results. why i never thought of this before is beyond me.
i read online that one should always use a yellow filter when shooting outside w/ b&w film. now my curiosity is piqued. on the bus to & from chitzen itza [march 5th] i was sitting by a woman who is some kind of videographer- she had some enormous digital camera w/her. she said when she was in film school she only shot B&W film w/a red filter. "i put a red filter on to shoot everything..." so these 2 different mentions of red filters, were an like an epiphany. i'll post once i have results.
[c]2008 doug duffey
