<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Filmtest on The Singemonkey</title>
    <link>https://photoblog-a3l.pages.dev/tags/filmtest/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Filmtest on The Singemonkey</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:01:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://photoblog-a3l.pages.dev/tags/filmtest/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>October 16, 2024</title>
      <link>https://photoblog-a3l.pages.dev/posts/2024-10-16-its-been-a-while-since/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:01:09 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://photoblog-a3l.pages.dev/posts/2024-10-16-its-been-a-while-since/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;It’s been a while since I shot film. Processes for sharing them have changed and I’ve forgotten some things. So I’m doing a little testing. Despite everything, when I have a perfect exposure (1/500th at f6.3 for the sun) and a stabilised lens, and boost the sharpness and balance the colour, the results are good even from a flatbed scanner with a very, very expired film. So I’m eager to see the results using a digital camera copy with a new film.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
