<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Its not photography, its Farktography | UhOhChongo | Activity</title>
	<link>https://www.farktography.com/members/uhohchongo/activity/</link>
	<atom:link href="https://www.farktography.com/members/uhohchongo/activity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Activity feed for UhOhChongo.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2026 03:49:28 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>https://buddypress.org/?v=</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<ttl>30</ttl>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>2</sy:updateFrequency>
	
						<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">85e149226d47164a1bbd1a7c4a70c9aa</guid>
				<title>UhOhChongo replied to the topic Pushing film in the forum In the darkroom</title>
				<link>http://www.farktography.com/forums/topic/pushing-film/#post-4260</link>
				<pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:36:28 -0500</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve done lots of pushing of 400 to 800 using Kodak Tri-X B&amp;W.  I found that an increase in development time of 20-25% worked excellent for me.  You might consider doing some test rolls to nail your times down.  You can expect some increase in graininess, but it&#8217;s really not too bad.</p>
<p>There are tons of variables (film speed, development&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-830"><a href="http://www.farktography.com/forums/topic/pushing-film/#post-4260" rel="nofollow ugc">Read more</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>