 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / July 2004Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)
Donald Qualls <silent1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<LjKGc.21080$JR4.19215@attbi_s54>... > Phil Glaser wrote: > > > Now here's an interesting thing. I've been developing TMY in HC-110 > > diluted 1:63 (unofficial dilution "h") for the accutance affect. After > > several tests, using a densitomter to get the Zone I exposure to .1 > > over b+f, I arrived at EI 200. So here I _lost_ a whole stop. That, > > and the noticably more grainy result, are motivating me to look for a > > new combination. > > IOW, you got what most Zonies get -- an EI one stop slower than the ISO > speed. I don't call that a speed loss, I call that a disparate method > of measuring speed. However... I'd like to hear from others who measure the toe speed this way. Could it be that a different developer would give me the same toe density at a higher EI, or is a one-stop speed loss indeed typical for us "Zonies"? > First, TMY is not a "slow to medium" film; second, you may find it > advantageous (especially with HC-110) to reduce agitation and develop > for contrast rather than toe density. Done your way, you get a flat > negative with EI 200; developed for mid-tones, you'll get a normal > negative with EI 400, requiring longer development in the same dilution. But doesn't this beg the question? Is the negative still "normal" at EI 400 if the Zone I exposure is thin? I have also exposed some TMAX at 400 and 320 and found that finer shaddow detail is lacking. Also, I don't think my negatives are flat. My zone VIII density is around 1.15 and I'm using a condensor enlarger. I'm finding that I get a decent print with a # 2 or even 1.5 contrast filter (I realize that this is not the same thing as _grade_ 2, but it gives you an idea -- my negatives are not flat). > This past weekend, I souped 4 rolls of TMY 120 in HC-110 Dilution G -- > 1:119 from USA syrup -- some for 15 minutes at 70 F with reduced > agitation (every 3 minutes), some for 15 minutes at 70 F with normal > agitation (every minute), and some for 12 minutes at 74 F (compensated > for increased temperature) with normal agitation. The roll with reduced > agitation is clearly of reduced contrast compared to the others, but all > have similar toe speed -- toe is affected primarily by total > time/temperature in the soup, regardless of agitation, because local > exhaustion doesn't affect lightly exposed areas. Mid-tones, and more so > highlights, get less development with less agitation, which reduces > contrast (because less agitation gives less fresh developer in areas > where it exhausts fastest -- and this is most pronounced at high > dilutions). So, when you reduce agitation, you have to develop longer > to get the contrast back to normal -- and in the process, you gain speed > in the toe. When you say "gain speed in the toe," it sounds like you are suggesting that longer development I will regain the toe desnity I'm looking for but, with less agitation, retain the proper highlight density? My concern with this approach is GRAIN. My current program with HC-110 1:63 seems to be rather grainy. It seems to me that increasing the development time is only going to make that worse. > The key, though, is not to develop until your toe is at 0.1 over B+F; > rather to develop to normal contrast and let the toe detemine where Zone > I falls. But here it sounds like you are saying _not_ to base development time on toe desnity. I'm confused. Could you please elaborate? --PHil > Donald Qualls <silent1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<LjKGc.21080$JR4.19215@attbi_s54>... > > Phil Glaser wrote: [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > --PHil This is the only post in this thread on my server so I've probably missed something. However, "toe speed" is a meaningless term. Film speed as measured by the ISO method has a speed point determined after development so that a specified _range_ of exposure re sults in a specified _range_ of densities, in effect a contrast index is specified. The speed point is where the density is log 0.1 above fog and base density. Note that the term "base fog" is incorrect, this comes from a confounding of the two terms fog and base density. The base density can be insignificant, as it is for most sheet and roll films, or it can be considerable as it is for many 35mm films which have a pigment in the support to reduce light-piping and give additional anti-halation reduction. In any case, the point where the silver density is log 0.1 above the total of the fog and the base density is assumed to be the minimum usable density. The film speed is calculated from this with a safety factor multiplier of 1.25. Since the ISO method does not take into account the contrast or gradient of the toe area the shadow contrast can be too low for some purposes and with some films when exposed using the ISO speed. Givinging the film somewhat more exposure will push the minimum densities of the image up the toe to a point where the contrast is greater. This may result in better tonal rendition. This effect is totally ignored by the Zone System. Also note that the ISO speed is valid only when the film is developed using the developer specified along with the speed rating (it can be any developer) and to the contrast index required by the standard. When film is developed to a lower CI, for instance for use in condenser enalarger, it must be developed less and the speed will be lower than that give by the ISO test. For most film an adjustment to a one paper grade lower contrast will require an increase in exposure of about 3/4 to 1 stop. The difference in printing contrast between a diffusion enlarger and a common partly diffuse condenser enlarger is about one paper grade. The idea of the Zone System is to expose and develop negatives so that scenes of varying brightness ranges will be represented by a constant density range on the negative. This will allow printing of all on a single grade of paper. However, the eye expects to see contrast approximating the original scene so the Zone System, used without some understanding and care, can result in very unnatural looking tone rendition.  Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com With TMY you will probably get the greatest speed/minimum grain size with Xtol straight or 1+1. D76 would also be a good choice, but you'll probably lose about 1/3 stop of speed. Michrophen will give the same speed as Xtol but with coarser grain. I remember reading an article that said that the results from HC110 were very, very close to a comparable development with Rodinol. In other words, there's fairly high accutence but large grain. -Peter > When film is developed to a > lower CI, for instance for use in condenser enalarger, it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > contrast between a diffusion enlarger and a common partly > diffuse condenser enlarger is about one paper grade. This puzzles me. I allways thought that condenser enlargers only increase the contrast of the final print - nothing more, nothing less. If we first decrease contrast (developing less, agitating less etc.)and then increase the contrast back to normal using a condenser enlarger, why would one have to expose at different EI? Shound't the decrease in development negate the effect of using condenser and thus not call for any change in EI? Example, using diffusing enlarger, EI = (say) ISO/2 and we develop "normally" and get: Zone I at 0.10 above fb+f (so the used EI is "correct") Zone X at 1.30 above fb+f Let's assume that it prints very well. Let's also assume that condenser enlarger increases contrast by a factor of 1.25. So using condenser, EI = ISO/2 and we develop now a little less: Zone I at 0.08 above fb+f (now the used EI seems to be too high) Zone X at 1.04 above fb+f Now using condenser the above "becomes" 0.10 and 1.30 above fb+f - actually only the resulting densities at the print change but... So why would I increase EI at the latter example? If I increase the EI to get Zone I at 0.1, the result is that Zone I prints as 0.125 (1.25 x (0.08+0.02)) and Zone X as 1.325 (1.25 x (1.04+0.02)). That would be incorrect, right? Regards, Severi Salminen > > When film is developed to a > > lower CI, for instance for use in condenser enalarger, it [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Regards, > Severi Salminen I see what you mean here. When the degree of development is changed the density of all parts of the image are changed. The denser parts change faster than the less dense parts, so the contrast changes. The exposure required to produce a density of log 0.1 above fog and base for a negative having the contrast required for printing on "normal" paper on a diffusion printer will not be sufficient to produce that density when the development is reduced to produce a negative for a condenser printer. So, in order to maintain the minimum density the exposure must be increased or there will be a loss of shadow detail. Another way of looking at this is to consider the minimum contrast necessary in the toe region to print shadows with any detail. Since the overall contrast is lowered by reducing development the gradient or contrast of the toe will also be decreased. Because the toe has lower contrast than the main body of the curve the exposure may fall on a part where the gradient is so low that even the increase in contrast from the light source will not bring it up enough to print. The ISO speed measuring method specifies a contrast about right for contact printing or diffusion enlarging. When the development is reduced to lower the contrast the ISO speed is no longer valid. Since there is virtually no safety factor in the ISO measurement there is not much room for error on the underexposure side. This can get critical when the development process loses some speed. OTOH there is lots of latitude on the overexposure side, as much as 12 stops for some films, so a little increase in exposure is always safer than a little decrease. In any case the exposure change between a diffusion negative and a condenser negative is about 3/4 stop. Note that because color film is not affected by the scattering of light which results in the "Callier effect" or change apparent density depending on the specularity of the light source, its contrast remains about constant with diffuse or condenser light sources so it needs no change. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > The exposure required to produce a density of log 0.1 > above fog and base for a negative having the contrast [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > density the exposure must be increased or there will be a > loss of shadow detail. Is the above totally correct? I have to explain my example in the previous post a bit more. All the numbers below refer to densities above fb+f. Let's say that 1.3 prints as Zone X on diffusion enlarger ("DIF" from now on). Let's also say that 1.04 prints as Zone X on condenser ("CON"). Let's also assume that 0.6 prints as Zone V on DIF. Shouldn't we be able to conclude that 0.48 prints as Zone V on CON (1.04/1.3 = 0.48/0.6)? If that is the case then we should be able to also conclude that if 0.1 prints as Zone I on DIF, then 0.08 prints as Zone I on CON (1.04/1.3 = 0.48/0.6 = 0.08/0.1). A: If the above is NOT true, then you seem to be saying that the difference between CON and DIF is not only contrast but also that it alters the curve shape. Is Callier Effect about changing contrast (mathematically speaking applying only a k-factor to the H&D curve) or does it indeed alter the curve shape non-linearly? B: If the above IS true, then one should not need to change EI at all when switching from DIF to CON as Zone I was printable with no additional exposure. Only the development time should be changed to reduce the film contrast to be able to print Zone I and Zone X. I have no means to test this in real life so that is why I ask. Regards, Severi Salminen > > The exposure required to produce a density of log 0.1 > > above fog and base for a negative having the contrast [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Regards, > Severi Salminen The Callier effect varies from one enlarger to another, and may vary slightly with different films. Reducing development TIME to compensate for the Callier effect reduces the shadow speed slightly. Additional exposure is therefore required to offset this. The reduced development means that the highlights will be less dense. The overall result is that a negative that is optimal for condenser has more shadow density and less highlight density than a negative suited for diffusion. The Callier effect is proportional to density: it increases contrast more in the heavier zones than in the lower densities. > Donald Qualls <silent1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<LjKGc.21080$JR4.19215@attbi_s54>... > I'd like to hear from others who measure the toe speed this way. Could > it be that a different developer would give me the same toe density at > a higher EI, or is a one-stop speed loss indeed typical for us > "Zonies"? Yes, other developers can give you a different toe speed at the same contrast, even with the same agitation program. Geoffrey Crawley is the authority here. For instance, a PQ acutance developer like FX-1 or FX-37 will gain up to a full stop of toe speed, depending on the film. T-grain films, for good or ill, show the least effect from this; if you're out to get the most film speed above the ISO rating, start with Tri-X and develop it in a PQ acutance developer or a speed enhancing solvent developer like Microphen or Acufine -- or Diafine, where you gain well over a full stop of toe speed, with a slight contrast boost that gives an EI of 1600 with contrast that looks more like, at most, a one stop push (Zone I may be almost empty, but Zone II looks pretty decent with Tri-X at EI 1600 in Diafine; if you expose at EI 1250 you get more in the shadows without blocking up the highlights, but I haven't found EI 1600 wanting). >>First, TMY is not a "slow to medium" film; second, you may find it >>advantageous (especially with HC-110) to reduce agitation and develop [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > EI 400 if the Zone I exposure is thin? I have also exposed some TMAX > at 400 and 320 and found that finer shaddow detail is lacking. If Zone I is thin with normal midtones, you don't have normal contrast, you have a push. That, to me, suggests you're agitating too much and then shortening development to avoid excessive contrast. Try, instead of shortening development to control excessive contrast, reducing agitation instead. Fewer inversions (2 or 3 instead of 5) or less frequent agitations (2 minutes, 3 minutes, even 5 minutes per cycle -- one advantage of high dilution is you get a long enough process to actually do this). > Also, I don't think my negatives are flat. My zone VIII density is > around 1.15 and I'm using a condensor enlarger. I'm finding that I get > a decent print with a # 2 or even 1.5 contrast filter (I realize that > this is not the same thing as _grade_ 2, but it gives you an idea -- > my negatives are not flat). Okay, but you're having to overexpose a stop to get that result with your development. >>This past weekend, I souped 4 rolls of TMY 120 in HC-110 Dilution G -- >>1:119 from USA syrup -- some for 15 minutes at 70 F with reduced [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > looking for but, with less agitation, retain the proper highlight > density? That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Here's an image from one of those films, TMY shot at EI 400 by Sunny 16 (and I tend to underexpose; this was dowtown, among buildings ranging up to 10 floors, in hazy conditions at f/11, 1/100, and I was probably at least one stop under, given that I was shooting into a car that amounts to deep shade), 6x4.5 format cropped to approximately 35 mm frame size. Developed in HC-110 Dilution G (1:119 from syrup), 15 minutes at 70 F with normal agitation (five inversions every minute after constant agitation first minute): http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2513755&size=lg Grain isn't excessive (this was scanned from the negative at 2400 ppi and reduced, after cropping, to about 20% for the above link; grain in the original scan is less than Tri-X in HC-110 Dilution B), and contrast is as close to normal as I'm likely to get when I can't afford a densitometer and in any case don't have a place to put it. The other negatives I developed for 15 minutes with agitation every three minutes, instead of every minute, were significantly lower in contrast; I'd have had to develop them longer to get a "normal" negative, which in turn would mean the shadows, with longer in the solution and little local exhaustion to inhibit them, would have developed more than in this image, gaining density relative to the highlights -- which, as I understand it, is a gain in toe speed without an increase in contrast. If this change is visible with TMY (and it is) it should be quite pronounced with a slow to medium, conventional grain film like Plus-X. > My concern with this approach is GRAIN. My current program with HC-110 > 1:63 seems to be rather grainy. It seems to me that increasing the > development time is only going to make that worse. That depends on what you want to do with your negatives. I don't see much likelihood of enlarging more than about 10x from mine -- that's a 10x15 print from 35 mm, or 18x24 inch print from 6x4.5 format. For that level of magnification, I don't find the grain of TMY done this way objectionable. Tri-X would have more visible grain -- but will show more effect from reduced agitation and extended development, so less of these measures are needed. >>The key, though, is not to develop until your toe is at 0.1 over B+F; >>rather to develop to normal contrast and let the toe detemine where Zone >>I falls. > > But here it sounds like you are saying _not_ to base development time > on toe desnity. I'm confused. Could you please elaborate? I *am* saying not to base development on toe density. Base development on mid tones, then adjust agitation and time together to get the toe where you want it (to add density in the toe, reduce agitation and add time -- both, not one or the other). Yes, that's heresy against the Zone system -- but Zone doesn't work all that well with roll films to begin with because you can't individually develop single frames, and modern films, especially T-grain types, are much harder to expand and contract the way Zone techniques would have you do; they simply show less effect with extended or shortened development absent other techniques. The reason behind the Zone system in the first place was to make images that were likely to print well on a limited range of graded papers without excessive manipulation -- multi-grade papers, dial-in contrast filtration or color heads, and split filtering techniques have superceded much of that need, while modern films have greatly complicated application of the techniques -- so why stick slavishly to a system developed for use with materials you can't buy any more? Instead, go back to the principle of a negative that prints well -- if you have good midtones, and have found the combination of EI, agitation and development time that also gives you good shadow detail, you're there. And if you can do that at a higher EI by reducing agitation and increasing development, unless you shoot 35 mm or smaller and like very large prints, what's the downside? With HC-110 Dilution G, BTW, you can go all the way to stand development -- pour in the developer, agitate continuously for one minute, then put the tank down and walk away, to return when the timer goes off (or, if it's more comfortable, agitate at 1/3 and 2/3, or 1/2 of the development time). Doing so will not only provide the maximum increase in toe speed relative to highlights (especially with conventional grain films), but will also foster edge effects -- depending on the film and developer, ranging from simple acutance enhancements (the edge of a light object is lighter, and the edge of a dark object darker, than the object as a whole, which makes edges look sharper) to borders and haloes caused by diffusion of fresh and spent developer across a light/dark boundary in absence of agitation. SignatureI may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. "Phil Glaser" <glaserp@sustainsoft.com>: > I'd like to hear from others who measure the toe speed this way. Could > it be that a different developer would give me the same toe density at > a higher EI, or is a one-stop speed loss indeed typical for us > "Zonies"? Toe? Who measures speed of the toe? If we are speaking of the same thing (for example, "shooting on the toe" in MP work for example), then methinks you are using the wrong film; TM films have no toe. > Donald Qualls <silent1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<LjKGc.21080$JR4.19215@attbi_s54>... > > Phil Glaser wrote: If I were you, I'd avoid using TMY at all, especially for 35mm and outdoor work. The curve shape is simply so bizarre that normal methods of exposure/contrast/development control simply fail. I've tried, and it simply does not work... > > > Now here's an interesting thing. I've been developing TMY in HC-110 > > > diluted 1:63 (unofficial dilution "h") for the accutance affect. After [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > --PHil > If I were you, I'd avoid using TMY at all, especially for 35mm and > outdoor work. The curve shape is simply so bizarre that normal methods > of exposure/contrast/development control simply fail. I've tried, and > it simply does not work... I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops film, I'm not surprised that it doesn't work for him. In particular, TMY is more sensitive to underexposure and/or overdevelopment than most other non-Tmax films. An exception would be Fuji Acros. -Peter > > If I were you, I'd avoid using TMY at all, especially for 35mm and > > outdoor work. The curve shape is simply so bizarre that normal methods [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -Peter Bullshit. It's NOT suitable for outdoor work. It sucks because of the CURVE SHAPE. S-shaped curves are better for outdoor work. TMY has a U-shaped curve. moron. >>I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in >>outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Michael Scarpitti wrote: > Bullshit. It's NOT suitable for outdoor work. It sucks because of the > CURVE SHAPE. S-shaped curves are better for outdoor work. TMY has a > U-shaped curve. moron. Then I guess the print in front of me, which was taken with TMY outdoors, must be magic. In any case thank you for continually acting like an a.s. That way newbies won't have illusions regarding your knowledge or character for very long. Peter P.S. Btw., my densitometer tells me that TMY has a very straight-line "curve" in Xtol. But that contradicts Mikey, and so I better get it checked. : >>I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in : >>outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : > : > Michael Scarpitti wrote: : > Bullshit. It's NOT suitable for outdoor work. It sucks because of the : > CURVE SHAPE. S-shaped curves are better for outdoor work. TMY has a : > U-shaped curve. moron. : Then I guess the print in front of me, which was taken with TMY : outdoors, must be magic. I had much the same reaction when scarpitti told me that TMX wasn't suited for outdoor work. He even went as far to claim that Kodak's use of studio images when advertising TMX and TMY as proof. : In any case thank you for continually acting like an a.s. That way : newbies won't have illusions regarding your knowledge or character for : very long. As long as you remember that Scarpitti has no ability to determine proper exposures, compose, develop film or make prints he's not so bad. Think of him as a form of entertainment, not as a form of photographic knowledge or information. : Peter : P.S. Btw., my densitometer tells me that TMY has a very straight-line : "curve" in Xtol. But that contradicts Mikey, and so I better get it checked. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > >>I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in > >>outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > P.S. Btw., my densitometer tells me that TMY has a very straight-line > "curve" in Xtol. But that contradicts Mikey, and so I better get it checked. 'Straight' isn't 'S'-shaped, now is it? >>>>I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in >>>>outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > 'Straight' isn't 'S'-shaped, now is it? Nor is it 'u' shaped as you said, now is it? > >>>>I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in > >>>>outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Nor is it 'u' shaped as you said, now is it? It depends on the developer/dilution whether it's straight or slightly U-shaped. The point is, that it's not 'S'-shaped. : > >>I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in : > >>outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] : > P.S. Btw., my densitometer tells me that TMY has a very straight-line : > "curve" in Xtol. But that contradicts Mikey, and so I better get it checked. : 'Straight' isn't 'S'-shaped, now is it? Straight isn't U shaped either. You made the claim that TMY had a U-shaped curve. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > >>I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in > : > >>outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Straight isn't U shaped either. You made the claim that TMY had a U-shaped curve. Depending on the developer and dilution, it can be straight or U-shaped. But in any case, the curve is markedly different from Tri-X, etc. THAT is the point. : > : > >>I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in : > : > >>outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] : > : > Straight isn't U shaped either. You made the claim that TMY had a U-shaped curve. : Depending on the developer and dilution, it can be straight or : U-shaped. But in any case, the curve is markedly different from Tri-X, : etc. THAT is the point. That's correct the curve of TMY is superior to that of tri-x. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > : > >>I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in > : > : > >>outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > That's correct the curve of TMY is superior to that of tri-x. Not superior, different, and not as well suited for outdoor work. Why? Outdoor daytime work typically contains a bright sky. The bright sky produces flare in the lens which ends affecting the shadow areas most, where it reduces contrast. TMY has LOW shadow contrast, which does not benefit from this flare. The shadows look very mushy therefore. On the other hand, the bright sky itself gets very dense because of the high contrast of TMY in the upper densities. The result is a negative with weak, flat shadows and unprintably dense skies/highlights. Tri-X and other films with S-shaped curves counter-act the problems of outdoor photography by having higher contrast in the shadows and softer contrast in the highlights, which is precisely what is needed, and precisely the opposite of TMY, the worst film of all time. : > : > : > >>I regularly use TMY developed in Xtol in 35mm, 120mm, 4x5 and 8x10 in : > : > : > >>outdoor work. It works very well. Given how Mikey exposes and develops [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] : > : > That's correct the curve of TMY is superior to that of tri-x. : Not superior, different, and not as well suited for outdoor work. Why? : Outdoor daytime work typically contains a bright sky. The bright sky [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : contrast in the highlights, which is precisely what is needed, and : precisely the opposite of TMY, the worst film of all time. Maybe if you learned to properly expose and develop film you wouldn't be having the problems with the Tmax films. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > Maybe if you learned to properly expose and develop film you wouldn't be having the > problems with the Tmax films. I do know how to expose and develop film properly. Part of that knowledge consists of knowing that some films are best suited for studio work while others are better suited for outdoor work. Some of us have actually read Kodak's technical publications and have undertood them. Others, such as you, just spout sh.t from your a.s. : > Maybe if you learned to properly expose and develop film you wouldn't be having the : > problems with the Tmax films. : I do know how to expose and develop film properly. Part of that : knowledge consists of knowing that some films are best suited for : studio work while others are better suited for outdoor work. Some of : us have actually read Kodak's technical publications and have : undertood them. Others, such as you, just spout sh.t from your a.s. The dreck you used to have on your website says that you don't know how to expose or develop film properly. Some of us have actually taken the time to properly expose and develop film. We have also used the Tmax films outdoors and don't have the problems that you claim occur. As always the proof is in the doing and you don't know how. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > Bullshit. It's NOT suitable for outdoor work. It sucks because of the > CURVE SHAPE. S-shaped curves are better for outdoor work. TMY has a > U-shaped curve. moron. The curve get's U-shaped within the usable range with overdevelopment and when using the wrong developer. take a closer look (TMY in D76): http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f002_0509ac.gif Sure, if you don't master a material or method it must be wrong for the rest for the world. We went through this more than once before. Stefan > > Bullshit. It's NOT suitable for outdoor work. It sucks because of the > > CURVE SHAPE. S-shaped curves are better for outdoor work. TMY has a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Stefan You'll note there is NO shoulder. Bad film, bad film! Be careful when comparing manufacturer's curves. A visual glance at the chart can give misimpressions. You have to plot each film using the same X,Y metrics. Further, you do not know what kind of light was used. And finally, some charts go off the scale of usable density. > Be careful when comparing manufacturer's curves. A visual glance at the > chart can give misimpressions. You have to plot each film using the same X,Y > metrics. Further, you do not know what kind of light was used. And finally, > some charts go off the scale of usable density. That's good advice, and I'll add that curves that I produce myself give me better information than ones produced by manufacturers, since I know the conditions of the test, and it takes into consideration my photographic system (exposure, development,...) I'll add that a number of enlarging papers from major manufacturers have reduced highlight contrast. Using a film/development combo with reduced highlight contrast (i.e. a shoulder) can result in overly flat high print values. I had that problem with PMK. It's a fine developer, but it didn't give me what I wanted with the film and paper that I wanted to use. As usual, Mikey doesn't know what he's talking about. At best, he's overgeneralizing tremendously, and no amount of name-calling is going to change that. Sure, if you want do reportage style photos in full sun of a polar bar at the zoo while guessing at exposure, Mikey's forte, then TMY might not be the best choice. The best choice would be for Mikey to stay home and take his meds. -Peter > That's good advice, and I'll add that curves that I produce myself give > me better information than ones produced by manufacturers, since I know > the conditions of the test, and it takes into consideration my > photographic system (exposure, development,...) I would dearly like to learn how to measure and plot B&W film color response myself. Does anyone have pointers to _good_ articles? Please, no Zone System tutorials. I'm cool with the ZS but for now I'd just like to learn the metrics of doing my own plots of color response for B&W film. It would be so very cool to know how Agfa B&W film responds in the light we actually _use_ (Daylight). > As usual, Mikey doesn't know what he's talking about. At best, he's > overgeneralizing tremendously [...] I suspect he doesn't shoot large format. It really is a different world than 35mm. > I would dearly like to learn how to measure and plot B&W film color response > myself. Does anyone have pointers to _good_ articles? Please, no Zone System > tutorials. I'm cool with the ZS but for now I'd just like to learn the > metrics of doing my own plots of color response for B&W film. Couldn't you use a MacBeth Color Checker, along with transmission and reflection densitometers, to do this? I just bought the book "Way Beyond Monochrome." I'll check if it has any useful information on this. -Peter > > I would dearly like to learn how to measure and plot B&W film color response > > myself. Does anyone have pointers to _good_ articles? Please, no Zone System > > tutorials. I'm cool with the ZS but for now I'd just like to learn the > > metrics of doing my own plots of color response for B&W film. > Couldn't you use a MacBeth Color Checker, along with transmission and > reflection densitometers, to do this? I just bought the book "Way > Beyond Monochrome." I'll check if it has any useful information on this. Peter, I just ordered the book. Sounds interesting. > > Be careful when comparing manufacturer's curves. A visual glance at the > > chart can give misimpressions. You have to plot each film using the same X,Y [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > it didn't give me what I wanted with the film and paper that I wanted to > use. Probably because you don't understand that it messes up VC paper by lowering the contrast in the areas where the stain is heaviest (highlights). If you use a staining developer, use GRADED paper only. > As usual, Mikey doesn't know what he's talking about. I know MORE than I'm talking about. I have to keep it simple for you idiots. > At best, he's > overgeneralizing tremendously, and no amount of name-calling is going to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -Peter > Probably because you don't understand that it messes up VC paper by > lowering the contrast in the areas where the stain is heaviest > (highlights). If you use a staining developer, use GRADED paper only. Duh. I just said that PMK lowers highlight contrast with vc paper. The stain acts much like a green filter. About using PMK with VC paper, you must know much more about it than Gordon Hutchings, who developed PMK, wrote a carefully detailed book about it, and makes better prints than Mikey can even dream of. Mikey, maybe you should try pouring syrup on that polar bear. That'd be "high art", at least for you. Oh, yeah, nice job completely ignoring the point which was that a film with a pronounced S curve is not always the best choice for outdoor work, contra your categorically stated position, especially with the major Kodak and Ilford printing papers. These papers have been modified to have lower highlight contrast since shortly after tabular and core grained films were released. It's how the negative and paper curves work together to make the print that's important, but you're clearly too mentally disturbed to realize that. Let me guess, before photography, glue sniffing was your main hobby, right? -Peter > [... speaking to MS...] > Oh, yeah, nice job completely ignoring the point which was that a film [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to have lower highlight contrast since shortly after tabular and core > grained films were released. [...] That's interesting. I wonder if that's the reason I'm so unhappy with their papers. I don't use it for those films. (I grew up spoiled rotten with an unlimited supply of Agfa graded papers and still haven't recovered from the loss.) > > Probably because you don't understand that it messes up VC paper by > > lowering the contrast in the areas where the stain is heaviest [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > -Peter Kodak Polymax was designed to work with T-Max film. Polycontrast is for conventional film. See? There's something I knew and you didn't. Ilford papers are not designed for T-Max films to the best of my knowledge. Why would they be? Get your info straight before posteing here, idiot. > Kodak Polymax was designed to work with T-Max film. Polycontrast is > for conventional film. See? There's something I knew and you didn't. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Get your info straight before posteing here, idiot. So you obviously never printed with Ilford RC paper. And just FYI, Kodak won't be selling Polymax II in the US anymore. Do you know the curve shape of the replacement? Given your response, I guess not. It, Polycontrast IV, has less highlight contrast than Polymax II or Polycontrast III. What was that you said? Oh yeah, "Get your info straight before posteing (nice spelling, btw.) here, idiot." -Peter > > Kodak Polymax was designed to work with T-Max film. Polycontrast is > > for conventional film. See? There's something I knew and you didn't. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So you obviously never printed with Ilford RC paper. I do, all the time. It looks fine with conventional films such as Neopan and with Delta 400. What evidence do you have that Ilford would care about how their paper matches up with Kodak films? > And just FYI, Kodak > won't be selling Polymax II in the US anymore. Do you know the curve > shape of the replacement? Given your response, I guess not. It, > Polycontrast IV, has less highlight contrast than Polymax II or > Polycontrast III. What was that you said? Oh yeah, "Get your info > straight before posteing (nice spelling, btw.) here, idiot." As far as Kodak is concerned, I wish them well. They'll need all the help they can get. > -Peter >>So you obviously never printed with Ilford RC paper. > > I do, all the time. It looks fine with conventional films such as > Neopan and with Delta 400. What evidence do you have that Ilford would > care about how their paper matches up with Kodak films? I never said that Ilford would care about their paper matching up with Kodak films, nor did I say that one couldn't get nice results with Ilford RC. What I said was the Ilford RC has a long toe. In other words it has lowered highlight contrast. Since that's the case, one *might* want to use a film with a fairly straight "curve", depending on the highlight rendition that one wants. You really don't care at all about getting what other people say correct, do you? You commit the Strawman fallacy, time, after time, after time... -Peter > Oh, yeah, nice job completely ignoring the point which was that a film > with a pronounced S curve is not always the best choice for outdoor > work, (It generally is.) Well, Kodak thinks so, and in the past designated and designed various films for various kinds of work based upon typical flare levels and lighting. Or don't you care about the facts? Kodak made Portrait Pan (portrait), Royal Pan (press), Tri-X (studio), etc, all with different curve shapes specifically because those different curve shapes gave the best results under the conditions for which the films were intended. Since there is so little demand today for sheet film, many of these have been discontinued. Kodak sells T-Max as a general-pupose film, which it certainly is not. Polymax paper was brought out specifically because people bitched so much about the highlight problems with T-Max and Polycontrast. Giacomo Bologna Barbera Booster The late Giacomo Bologna was the temperamental opposite of Ray, Frank and Reynaud. Everyone who knew him seems to describe him the same way--jolly, outgoing, enthusiastic, generous. Yet in terms of his vision, Bologna was clearly ahead of his time. Bologna's dream was that the lowly Barbera grape would one day be recognized for its ability to produce world-class wines. Bologna's winery, Braida, in the Asti region of Piedmont, is run today by his son and daughter. Unlike my other three nominees for greatness, Bologna wasn't a hands-on winemaker. Instead, he spent a lot of time on the road--traveling, talking, listening and learning--trying to figure out what would make his wine great. Barbera has always been an important grape for Piedmont. Before World War II, it accounted for about 80 percent of the region's production, and even today that figure is around 50 percent. But while it has always been valued for its prolific nature and its rustic charms, Barbera was considered second class when compared with Nebbiolo, the grape of famous wines like Barolo and Barbaresco. Bologna believed that Asti could be for Barbera what Burgundy was for Pinot Noir. So he traveled to France and brought back the idea of fermenting his wines in small French barriques. This experiment proved quite successful, as the French barrels helped tame another Barbera trademark, terrific acidity. Bologna also went to California, where, as Dominic Nocerino, Bologna's importer then and now, told me, he was inspired and gratified by what California's winemakers were doing with Barbera. Bologna created special Barbera crus from single vineyards--most famously Bricco dell'Uccellone, a wine of such incredible richness, power and intensity that it's considered one of the best wines in Italy today. Like the other wine greats, Bologna was proud to put a price to his work--a price that some people considered ridiculously high, until they tasted the wine. The market has finally caught up with him, and today there are plenty of producers making and selling their own very serious, very pricey Barbera wines. > > Probably because you don't understand that it messes up VC paper by > > lowering the contrast in the areas where the stain is heaviest [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > wrote a carefully detailed book about it, and makes better prints than > Mikey can even dream of. I'd sure like to see his 35mm street work. You make me laugh. > Mikey, maybe you should try pouring syrup on > that polar bear. Oh, so a man jumping over a puddle represents a more important historical event? On what grounds is that true? The lighting in HCB's puddle-jumper is not even interesting. > That'd be "high art", at least for you. Photography is not and cannot be art. > Oh, yeah, nice job completely ignoring the point which was that a film > with a pronounced S curve is not always the best choice for outdoor > work, contra your categorically stated position, especially with the > major Kodak and Ilford printing papers. These papers have been modified > to have lower highlight contrast since shortly after tabular and core > grained films were released. Delta films have S-shaped curves. Ilford has not had to change their papers like Kodak had to, because the Delta films do not suffer from the problems that T-Max films do. Get your facts straight. > It's how the negative and paper curves > work together to make the print that's important, but you're clearly too > mentally disturbed to realize that. Let me guess, before photography, > glue sniffing was your main hobby, right? > > -Peter > Photography is not and cannot be art. > That's a good comment to keep in mind for anyone who thinks that it'd be a good idea to follow your advice. > > Photography is not and cannot be art. > > > > > That's a good comment to keep in mind for anyone who thinks that it'd be > a good idea to follow your advice. Of course, if you're so deluded to think that photography is 'fine art' go right ahead. I'll order the Thorazine right away... >>>Probably because you don't understand that it messes up VC paper by >>>lowering the contrast in the areas where the stain is heaviest [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I'd sure like to see his 35mm street work. You make me laugh. I've seen some of Mikeys 35mm "Zoo", oops, I mean "street" work. What crap! >>Mikey, maybe you should try pouring syrup on >>that polar bear. > > Oh, so a man jumping over a puddle represents a more important > historical event? On what grounds is that true? The lighting in HCB's > puddle-jumper is not even interesting. When did I ever say that HCB "puddle-jumper" is a photograph that I admire? I don't particularly like it, but in any case it's worlds better than anything that Mikey has shown. > Delta films have S-shaped curves. Ilford has not had to change their > papers like Kodak had to, because the Delta films do not suffer from > the problems that T-Max films do. Get your facts straight. You've clearly never used Ilford RC paper. Have you run sensitometric tests with it? I have, and you're FOS, as usual. -Peter > >>>Probably because you don't understand that it messes up VC paper by > >>>lowering the contrast in the areas where the stain is heaviest [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > admire? I don't particularly like it, but in any case it's worlds > better than anything that Mikey has shown. You wish. It's nothing special at all. > > Delta films have S-shaped curves. Ilford has not had to change their > > papers like Kodak had to, because the Delta films do not suffer from > > the problems that T-Max films do. Get your facts straight. > > > You've clearly never used Ilford RC paper. Oh, so you have been in my darkroom? What are all those packages of MG IV then? > Have you run sensitometric > tests with it? I have, and you're FOS, as usual. No, I make prints, dumbass, I don't run tests. WHY THE f.ck would Ilford adapt their paper to T-Max? Ilford Delta films have quite a different curve shape from T-Max films. You're impossibly dense. Go jump out of a thirty-story building and do us all a favor. > -Peter > > Bullshit. It's NOT suitable for outdoor work. It sucks because of the > > CURVE SHAPE. S-shaped curves are better for outdoor work. TMY has a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Stefan Look at the curve of Neopan 400: http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/Neopan400.pdf You'll see what I mean by curve shape. See how the contrast dips above the middle tones? TMY does just the opposite. The dip helps deal with typical outdoor scenes. It preserves mid-tone contrast while preventing highlights from blocking up. Moron. > > Bullshit. It's NOT suitable for outdoor work. It sucks because of the > > CURVE SHAPE. S-shaped curves are better for outdoor work. TMY has a > > U-shaped curve. moron. > Sure, if you don't master a material or method it must be wrong for > the rest for the world. We went through this more than once before. 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics, moron. > > Bullshit. It's NOT suitable for outdoor work. It sucks because of the > > CURVE SHAPE. S-shaped curves are better for outdoor work. TMY has a > > U-shaped curve. moron. > Sure, if you don't master a material or method it must be wrong for > the rest for the world. We went through this more than once before. 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics, moron. > 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics. TMY as well as TMX has significantly different curve shapes with different developers. Take a look at Kodak's publications. > > 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics. > > TMY as well as TMX has significantly different curve shapes with > different developers. Take a look at Kodak's publications. Different, but not 'significantly' different. Not enough different to become similar to Tri-X. : > > 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics. : > : > TMY as well as TMX has significantly different curve shapes with : > different developers. Take a look at Kodak's publications. : Different, but not 'significantly' different. Not enough different to : become similar to Tri-X. Why would I want a fine film like TMY to end up looking like Tri-X?? That would be an unacceptable step backwards. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > > 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics. > : > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Why would I want a fine film like TMY to end up looking like Tri-X?? That would be an > unacceptable step backwards. Depends on what you mean. Tri-X have a superior characteristic curve for uncontrolled/outdoor work. : > : > > 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics. : > : > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : > Why would I want a fine film like TMY to end up looking like Tri-X?? That would be an : > unacceptable step backwards. : Depends on what you mean. Tri-X have a superior characteristic curve : for uncontrolled/outdoor work. Sounds like you need to learn how to control the Tmax films. They have a wide exposure latitude. Even your aproach of guess at the exposure and pray for the best method can give you a printable negative if you develop it right. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > : > > 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics. > : > : > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > latitude. Even your aproach of guess at the exposure and pray for the best method > can give you a printable negative if you develop it right. The question is not getting a 'printable negative' but an ideal one. : > : > : > > 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics. : > : > : > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] : > latitude. Even your aproach of guess at the exposure and pray for the best method : > can give you a printable negative if you develop it right. : The question is not getting a 'printable negative' but an ideal one. Getting an ideal negative is why it's important to use the zone system with Tmax films. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > : > : > > 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics. > : > : > : > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Getting an ideal negative is why it's important to use the zone system with Tmax films. No, VFD is not necessary. Films with S-shaped curves provide ideal negatives with proper exposure and normal development. That's my point. > Different, but not 'significantly' different. Not enough different to > become similar to Tri-X. Hey Michael! Would you shoot yourself if Kodak quit making Tri-X? : > Different, but not 'significantly' different. Not enough different to : > become similar to Tri-X. : Hey Michael! Would you shoot yourself if Kodak quit making Tri-X? In past threads he's made it clear he doesn't use Tri-x. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > Different, but not 'significantly' different. Not enough different to > : > become similar to Tri-X. > > : Hey Michael! Would you shoot yourself if Kodak quit making Tri-X? > > In past threads he's made it clear he doesn't use Tri-x. ooooh. He talks so much about it, I thought he did. What's he use? > > > : > Different, but not 'significantly' different. Not enough different to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ooooh. He talks so much about it, I thought he did. What's he use? Lately he uses Fuji Neopan 400 and Ilford Delta 400, which he thinks are slightly better than Tri-X in tonality and sharpness/fine grain, but with similar overall impressions. Both of these films have pronounced shoulders, and both are utterly unlike TMY. > > ooooh. He talks so much about it, I thought he did. What's he use? > > Lately he uses Fuji Neopan 400 and Ilford Delta 400, which he thinks > are slightly better than Tri-X in tonality and sharpness/fine grain, > but with similar overall impressions. Both of these films have > pronounced shoulders, and both are utterly unlike TMY. I'm very interested in using Neopan 400 and their Quickloads in 4x5. I had feared it was another t-grain film so I just passed on it. > I'm very interested in using Neopan 400 and their Quickloads in 4x5. I had > feared it was another t-grain film so I just passed on it. I didn't realize the Fuji had a 400 speed BW film available in Quickloads. That would be good news. I'd prefer TMY, but I'll make do. -Peter > I didn't realize the Fuji had a 400 speed BW film available in > Quickloads. That would be good news. I'd prefer TMY, but I'll make do. I stand corrected. Fuji has ACROS 100 in Quickloads. I haven't found 400. >>I didn't realize the Fuji had a 400 speed BW film available in >>Quickloads. That would be good news. I'd prefer TMY, but I'll make do. > > I stand corrected. Fuji has ACROS 100 in Quickloads. I haven't found 400. Son of a gun. There you went and got my hopes up. Other than reciprocity characteristics, Acros is very similar to TMX, at least it is in Xtol 1:3. It's also a little on the spendy side. -Peter > Donald Qualls <silent1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<LjKGc.21080$JR4.19215@attbi_s54>... What format are you using? >>Donald Qualls <silent1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<LjKGc.21080$JR4.19215@attbi_s54>... > > What format are you using? 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x9 (all 120, obviously). All in antique cameras, in case lens design makes a difference. But I won't see your reply -- I've gotten tired of your ranting and the ranting you inspire. SignatureI may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. > >>Donald Qualls <silent1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<LjKGc.21080$JR4.19215@attbi_s54>... > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But I won't see your reply -- I've gotten tired of your ranting and the > ranting you inspire. I am not responsible for the idiocy of others. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.