As far as treating this like an experiment, I did pretty much everything wrong. I had nothing but variables.
I used a camera I’d never used before.
It was loaded with unknown el-cheapo 400 film that came with the camera. The label, including the DX coding, was a sticker. It wasn’t even Lomo-branded, just a sticker.
I’d never processed color print film before so saying I’d never used the chemicals (Unicolor C-41 kit) before is kind of redundant.
Just to be a complete fool, I used a reel and tank I’d never used before too. It’s a Paterson set I got from Goodwill. The plastic reel is almost the same as the Yankee I used for the 120 B&W but I had a heck of a time getting it loaded in the dark bag. And, of course, the tank lid leaked like a $#@! when I inverted it.
I also ignored the camera manual where it says not to bother using it indoors. I tried to catch the cats in action in the house and got a whole lot of nothing.
Astonishingly, I got 11 frames with something on them. Eight of them are even reasonably well exposed.
Here are three with a wee bit of visual interest.
Some crops from the raven photo.
There is a lot of exposure variation from lens to lens but that’s part of the adventure with strange, cheap cameras. It’s a lot of fun to use so we’re already burning through another roll. Negatives scanned at 4800DPI on a Canoscan 9000f and resized for upload. Straightened, cropped, and a small color tweak in Photoshop.
Based on what I’ve learned from processing this roll, the next one will get a rinse between the developer and blix. I’ll also do a post-stabilizer rinse and Photoflo — there were a lot of water spots. I’ll practice with the Paterson reel and use the Yankee if it’s hosed. I may use the Yankee tank any way since it doesn’t leak. I need to get some small containers so it’s easier to keep track of the age of the chemicals.