X-Pro'd Agfa Precisa in Mexico

[earthmanbuck]

I took a trip down to Mexico last month, and got some of my pictures back from the lab about a week ago. This was a roll of Agfa Precisa I exposed at ISO 200 (box speed 100) and cross-processed. This is only my second shot at cross-processing, and they turned out better than my first, so I'm pretty pleased. The pics turned out a little greener than I was expecting (I was kind of thinking I'd get a more subtle blue tinge), but I think they're sorta neat. Here are a few I like:


There were also some that turned out a little dark or a little too washed...I'm not really sure what I did wrong in these ones, so any advice is welcome:


I have another couple rolls to develop from the trip still, but both are only about half done so far. One is another roll I plan on cross-processing (I think it's Sensia 100 that I also shot at 200), so I'm thinking I might wait to see what you folks have to say about the ones with the lighting issues and use the remaining half roll to experiment and improve.

 

[BlackSheep]

There were also some that turned out a little dark or a little too washed...I'm not really sure what I did wrong in these ones, so any advice is welcome:

Do you remember what settings you used when you shot them? Also, why did you decide to shoot at the higher ISO then rated?

 

[Josh66]

There were also some that turned out a little dark or a little too washed...I'm not really sure what I did wrong in these ones, so any advice is welcome:

Do you remember what settings you used when you shot them? Also, why did you decide to shoot at the higher ISO then rated?

Wondering about that too. If anything, I think I would do the opposite.

Haha - I remember that thread you linked to - did you ever try what I suggested?

 

[earthmanbuck]

I shot at a higher ISO because I've read in a few different places that when cross-processing (especially outside in the sun) it's good to underexpose a little, because cross-processing tends to blow things out a little. I don't remember the exact settings for each one, but I was pretty much just going by the light meter in the camera (which, by the way, was a Pentax K1000). I was adjusting shutter speed and aperture so that every picture I took was either right on the line or else a bit below.

In retrospect, I think the last picture (the dark one) may have turned out that way because the sun was either directly overhead or even slightly behind the people in the pic. I just looked at a map of the place, and given the time we were there (before noon), that must have been it. But the blown-out one kinda perplexes me. Maybe I just didn't look at the meter for that one? Or could it be something to do with the angle I took it (that is, too much sun reflection off the grass)?

 

[earthmanbuck]

Wondering about that too. If anything, I think I would do the opposite.

Haha - I remember that thread you linked to - did you ever try what I suggested?

Not yet, but I haven't forgotten it. I'm actually kind of on the lookout for cheap slide film on eBay to play around with. I'm sorta hesitant to make test rolls out of the last couple rolls of slide I have.

 

[Josh66]

I know what you mean (wasting film for test rolls), but if you're going to shoot a lot of the same film, sacrificing one for testing can help a lot.

It's strange, because there is really only one (maybe two) that look 'properly' exposed. The rest seem to be either under or over exposed... If you shot the whole roll at the same ISO, and metered the same way ... I just don't get that.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Whoever did the scanning really botched the highlights.