Don't ask what's going on on top of the frame because I don't know. It's actually visible on unexposed, undeveloped film on emulsion side. I suspect some chemical fogging or contamination from storage.
Bottom right is just regular light leak from bad respooling (not done by me). Shame cos I'd have liked this shot without all the junk.
>>4498218I never formally studied or used zone system, but I know the basics of it and probably have been unintentionally using some of its principles anyway. Like when I know a scene is tricky or I just want it in a specific way then I'll switch to spot meter for one subject and eyeball exposure compensation from there if needed, while keeping the dynamic range of the whole scene in mind.
Either way, everything about my process (especially from developing) has been calibrated for digital scanning. (Calibrated in the loose sense of the word, just arriving at what works best through trial and error without turning it into scientific endeavor). So it might take a while to unlearn all that and find what works best for printing. And just having this extra set of variables - paper developer, dilution and development time - to interact with their equivalents used for film scares me a little right now. At least once the film is developed then I know my scanner will give me constant results, so if I fucked up then it will show in a predictable way and I'll know where the problem happened. But printing to paper is another layer of abstraction on top of that.
LF sounds like fun but I think I'll save it for another decade lol. I already started shooting medium and printing in the last 3 years and those were two massive steps that I've been pushing away since forever.
