 |
 | 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 / April 2005Tmax 100 versus APX 100
I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot 400 asa or 50 asa films so I'm not that familiar with the various options at 100. Would people recommend Tmax 100 or Agfa APX at the same speed? I'll probably be using Rodinal initially but I'm open to other developer suggestions. Any other 100 asa brand that people like -- some of the smaller ones like Foma, Efke or Maco? Matt 1) I would NOT use Rodinal. D-76 1:1 is just fine 2) Ilford FP4 Plus or Delta 100 are probably easier to work with > I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot 400 asa or 50 > asa films so I'm not that familiar with the various options at 100. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Matt APX-100 in Medium format is very good developed in X-tol 1+1 or FX-39, great for kids. In 35mm I would only use it (apx) for snapshots to 5x7. In 35mm I would rather use Ilfords Delta 100 in X-tol 1+1 or FX-39 with Tmax as my 2nd choice. > I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot 400 asa or 50 > asa films so I'm not that familiar with the various options at 100. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Any other 100 asa brand that people like -- some of the smaller ones > like Foma, Efke or Maco? You did say what size film you will be using. When I was shooting mostly 35mm, I was using mostly Tri-X, and found Rodinal too grainy for my taste. For a film like that, I found D-76d and HC-110 (dilution B) to be about the best. When the TMax films came out, I tried a lot of different developers (but not Rodinal), and found that TMax-RS developer was the best for that, but that D-76d was good too. My preference at the moment is XTol developer 1+1 for it. I never used APX 100, so I would not know about that. But I like TMax 100 and TMax 400 a lot because of their very straight D/H curves, especially wnen developped in XTol 1+1. Some people do not like straight D/H curves because you must be more careful to give proper exposure.  Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 10:00:00 up 4 days, 17 min, 3 users, load average: 4.09, 4.11, 4.09 >> I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot 400 asa or 50 >> asa films so I'm not that familiar with the various options at 100. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Rodinal too grainy for my taste. For a film like that, I found D-76d and >HC-110 (dilution B) to be about the best. I'll largely be using 35mm although I do shoot 120. However, 120 I usually have processed by a lab rather than doing it myself. Matt > >> I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot 400 asa or 50 > >> asa films so I'm not that familiar with the various options at 100. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I'll largely be using 35mm although I do shoot 120. However, 120 I > usually have processed by a lab rather than doing it myself. APX 100 is a nice film, but 35mm will be a bit too grainy IMO if developed in Rodinal. I use TMX in Rodinal but only in 4x5. Of course if grain is the effect you want then rodinal with APX is the combination to use. But for either TMX or APX 35mm I'd probably use D76 or even Microdol-X. The difference between TMX and APX is APX is a traditional b&w film with a definite shoulder. TMX simply has no shoulder. I used to prefer APX when it came in ISO 25 but it isn't available in 4x5 anymore. > The difference between TMX and APX is APX is a traditional > b&w film with a definite shoulder. Nobody shoots to the shoulder. Toe, maybe, but not the shoulder. Chances are your exposures are in the straighter part of the curve anyway. > > The difference between TMX and APX is APX is a traditional > > b&w film with a definite shoulder. > > Nobody shoots to the shoulder. Toe, maybe, but not the shoulder. Chances are > your exposures are in the straighter part of the curve anyway. How would you know, troll? You've never even drawn a film curve, let let alone seen an APX shoulder... On 3/29/2005 10:12 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: >> > The difference between TMX and APX is APX is a traditional >> > b&w film with a definite shoulder. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You've never even drawn a film curve, let > let alone seen an APX shoulder... Ad hominem? You want ad hominem? Apparently to T.P. all who disagree with him are "trolls", except for his butt-f.ck partner Gregory Blank. Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson > On 3/29/2005 10:12 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Apparently to T.P. all who disagree with him are "trolls", except for his > butt-f.ck partner Gregory Blank. Stafford is a troll; he's constantly trolling for flames. You OTOH are only a foul mouthed crossposter who unfortunately can't express himself except in pitiable obscene fit's of rage and insecurity. If either you or stafford have ever drawn (or even seen) an APX shoulder, I'll killfile Gregory :) On 3/29/2005 10:49 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: >> On 3/29/2005 10:12 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > If either you or stafford have ever drawn (or even seen) > an APX shoulder, I'll killfile Gregory :) I haven't, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if jjs has, so we'll note that the gauntlet has been thrown down here. (I've never even shot APX, but want to do so soon. At least before the digital wave swamps us all and it becomes unavailable.) Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson > On 3/29/2005 10:49 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > (I've never even shot APX... LOL...Not only is your own flame (as usual) a baseless obscene rant, if there's any other proof needed that stafford's a troll just refer to his most recent March 25th attempt "TP Sins..." If that's not a deliberate troll, trolls don't exist :) As to this gauntlet nonsense, you must be really bored. Nevertheless proof is below. You yourself labeled stafford an old "fart" when he flamed and challened the fact that altering development time caused a change in film speed. Anyone who has ever drawn a family of curves would know this as it's plainly observable. All authorites note this. Stafford, never having done this or read a book (because he knows zilch about sensitometry, not unlike scarpitti with whom he was in concert), replied with the following (from your own post): > Subject: Re: The Definition of Pushing > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:48:19 -0800 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> In article <3FB04382.C7657127@aol.com>, Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote: >> > jjs wrote: >> > > >> > > In article <3FB03F59.542FD382@aol.com>, Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote: >> > > > Increasing/decreasing development time moves the speed point. >> > > >> > > Only when you work in the very abstract: exposing for a certain gamma >> > > without consideration for the rest of the densities of the average >> > > real-world picture - which when pushing are often, but not always, totally >> > > unusable. >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Don't worry; "jjs" is just a dyspeptic old fart. Subject: Re: The Definition of Pushing Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom Michael Scarpitti wrote: > Tom Phillips <nospam777@aol.com> wrote in message news:<3FB0539F.50CB25E8@aol.com> > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No, it does not gain speed. The 'density gain' in the shadow regions is FOG. It isn't a "density" gain." It's a movement of the speed point, which is how ISO speeds are determined using the position of 0.10 net density (the toe of the curve.) Base+fog is irrelevant. I quote Jack Eggleston (Sensitometry for Photographers) on determining the speed of a film: "There are several methods of finding and expressing the speed of a film...but with all speed systems an increase in speed shows as the shift of the characteristic curve towards the left along the log exposure axis." In other words if you've ever noted the position of the speed point in a family of curves for a given film-developer combination you'll also notice the curves shift either left or right in relation to development times. This constitutes a shift in effective film speed. From Richard J. Henry (Controls in Black and White Photography, second edition, page 152: "The effective speed of a film is measured under conditions that produce a CI of about 0.56. When the CI is changed, the position of the speed point (film 0.1 above fb+f) shifts, resulting in a change of the speed. AS CI decreases, speed decreases. As CI increases, speed increases." From Ansel Adams (The Negative," chapter 4 "Zone System."): "Increased development moves the effective threshold [speed point] to the left indicating that less exposure [increased speed] is necessary, and reducing development moves the threshold to the right indicating that an increase [decreased film speed] in exposure is required...If using the manufacturers recommended ASA number we find that a Zone I exposure produces a density higher than 0.10 [threshold speed point] we can reduce this exposure by assigning a higher film speed." Adams is here talking about a change in effective film speed. These authorities all agree. : > On 3/29/2005 10:49 AM Tom Phillips spake thus: : > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] : > : > (I've never even shot APX... : LOL...Not only is your own flame (as usual) a baseless : obscene rant, if there's any other proof needed that : stafford's a troll just refer to his most recent March : 25th attempt "TP Sins..." If that's not a deliberate : troll, trolls don't exist :) : As to this gauntlet nonsense, you must be really bored. : Nevertheless proof is below. You yourself labeled stafford [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : with whom he was in concert), replied with the following : (from your own post): : > Subject: Re: The Definition of Pushing : > Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:48:19 -0800 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] : > : > Don't worry; "jjs" is just a dyspeptic old fart. : Subject: Re: The Definition of Pushing : Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom : Michael Scarpitti wrote: : > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : > : > No, it does not gain speed. The 'density gain' in the shadow regions is FOG. : It isn't a "density" gain." It's a movement of the speed point, which is how : ISO speeds are determined using the position of 0.10 net density (the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] : or right in relation to development times. This constitutes a shift in : effective film speed. : From Richard J. Henry (Controls in Black and White Photography, second : edition, page 152: "The effective speed of a film is measured under : conditions that produce a CI of about 0.56. When the CI is changed, the : position of the speed point (film 0.1 above fb+f) shifts, resulting in a : change of the speed. AS CI decreases, speed decreases. As CI increases, : speed increases." : From Ansel Adams (The Negative," chapter 4 "Zone System."): "Increased : development moves the effective threshold [speed point] to the left [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : reduce this exposure by assigning a higher film speed." Adams is here : talking about a change in effective film speed. : These authorities all agree. What's the purpose of this troll? SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > What's the purpose of this troll? I don't know but its relative to the 126 lines of unsnipped quotation for a one line response you just posted ;-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 : : > What's the purpose of this troll? : I don't know but its relative to the 126 lines of unsnipped : quotation for a one line response you just posted ;-) I've noticed that the faster my internet connection the less trimming I do. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com On 3/29/2005 5:17 PM Frank Pittel spake thus: > : > : > What's the purpose of this troll? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I've noticed that the faster my internet connection the less trimming > I do. Oho, so since *you* have a fast internet connection, it's OK for you to be lazy and not trim your postings--that's left as an exercise to the *reader* to slog through a forest of needless crap? Remind me never to call you to work on any project that requires finesse and a knowledge of communication. Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson > On 3/29/2005 5:17 PM Frank Pittel spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > lazy and not trim your postings--that's left as an exercise to the *reader* to > slog through a forest of needless crap? In the case of your posts I suggest Frank simply trim everything. Then no one has to read it. : > On 3/29/2005 5:17 PM Frank Pittel spake thus: : > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : > lazy and not trim your postings--that's left as an exercise to the *reader* to : > slog through a forest of needless crap? : In the case of your posts I suggest Frank simply trim : everything. Then no one has to read it. You could do yourself and everyone in this group a favor and keep your promise about putting me in your kill file. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > On 3/29/2005 5:17 PM Frank Pittel spake thus: > : > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You could do yourself and everyone in this group a favor and keep your > promise about putting me in your kill file. And that's why you always reply? If you don't want attention, don't seek it. > What's the purpose of this troll? Never mind Frank. David Nebenzahl will seize any opportunity to display his mastery of anal expletives. > LOL...Not only is your own flame (as usual) a baseless > obscene rant, if there's any other proof needed that > stafford's a troll just refer to his most recent March > 25th attempt "TP Sins..." If that's not a deliberate > troll, trolls don't exist :) David N has been in my kill file so long I almost gladly have forgotten who the hell, he is :-D John S; I took out a while back and although I still find him mildly obnoxious, he hasn't done half of what "Scarp" or Benzl do-"Yet", so out he stays until something warrants him to be placed back there. Even if I do have to roll my eyes sometimes ;-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >David N has been in my kill file so long >I almost gladly have forgotten who the hell, he is :-D Same here. I have no patience for adult adolescents. John - http://www.puresilver.org "Are you planning on accepting the new definition of photography?" - Frank "Just as soon as humanity accepts a new definition of the term humanity." - John > LOL...Not only is your own flame (as usual) a baseless > obscene rant, if there's any other proof needed that > stafford's a troll just refer to his most recent March > 25th attempt "TP Sins..." If that's not a deliberate > troll, trolls don't exist :) It is not a troll, but a direct comment to counter your assinine assertions regarding what is, and is not, photography. You could not answer it then, and you cannot now. Try as you may, you cannot discredit a person who actually makes photographs. > > LOL...Not only is your own flame (as usual) a baseless > > obscene rant, if there's any other proof needed that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It is not a troll, No, _you_ are the troll.. > I haven't, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if jjs has, so we'll note > that the gauntlet has been thrown down here. I'm a little confused by the attributes, David so that is my error. To clarify to whomever (but you), I do use APX almost exclusively in 120 format so I am familiar with its response. Who was objecting to experienced use? A keyboard artist? On 3/29/2005 5:59 PM jjs spake thus: >> I haven't, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if jjs has, so we'll note >> that the gauntlet has been thrown down here. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Who was objecting to experienced use? A keyboard artist? JJ, do I have to 'splain *everything* to you? Now sit down, take your Geritol, and listen up. Tom FillLips has accused you of having no knowledge of film curves. To wit: > You've never even drawn a film curve, let > let alone seen an APX shoulder... (directed at you) I merely told him that he was probably wrong about this. Was he? Signature"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon." - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by the late Hunter S. Thompson > JJ, do I have to 'splain *everything* to you? Now sit down, take your > Geritol, and listen up. Hey, don't try to foist that 90% alcohol stuff on me. There are more cost-effectives. > Tom FillLips has accused you of having no knowledge of film curves. To > wit: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I merely told him that he was probably wrong about this. Was he? Well, ya big silly, of course he was wrong. Thanks for making the effort to straighten out the attributes. The next Geritol is on me... if you don't mind a generic substitute... a name brand of Tequila comes to mind. > a name brand of Tequila comes to mind. I can see it now; you both will be fighting to see who gets ta suck on the worm. BTW processing film in Dektol is what I live for. >> a name brand of Tequila comes to mind. > > I can see it now; you both will be fighting to see who gets > ta suck on the worm. > > BTW processing film in Dektol is what I live for. Ya ain't s*t unless you are shooting Minox with that formula. >> > The difference between TMX and APX is APX is a traditional >> > b&w film with a definite shoulder. >> >> Nobody shoots to the shoulder. Toe, maybe, but not the shoulder. Chances >> are >> your exposures are in the straighter part of the curve anyway. > How would you know, troll? Show me your images shot to the shoulder. > >> > The difference between TMX and APX is APX is a traditional > >> > b&w film with a definite shoulder. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Show me your images shot to the shoulder. Since you've never actually seen an APX shoulder, or how it thus compares with Tmax, why should I? BTW, this is my last response. Enjoy it :) > BTW, this is my last response. Enjoy it :) To everyone? Or just JJS? SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > > BTW, this is my last response. Enjoy it :) > > To everyone? Or just JJS? Sorry. I only momentarily had a relapse and replied to stafford. Don't know what got into me ;) What I said (below) to <expletive deleted> Nebenzahl was I'd killfile "Gregory" if either he or stafford had ever graphed or even seen an APX shoulder. Of course I was confident neither had :) > >David Nebenzahl wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If either you or stafford have ever drawn (or even seen) > an APX shoulder, I'll killfile Gregory :) > What I said (below) to <expletive deleted> Nebenzahl > was I'd killfile "Gregory" if either he or stafford > had ever graphed or even seen an APX shoulder. Of > course I was confident neither had :) What do you expect from a "Troll Patrol" >> > BTW, this is my last response. Enjoy it :) >> >> To everyone? Or just JJS? > > Sorry. I only momentarily had a relapse and replied > to stafford. Don't know what got into me ;) Tom cannot tolerate rational discourse. Leave him be. I don't killfile his posts because they serve so well for philosophy courses on aberrant thinking. He's the classic case. >> Show me your images shot to the shoulder. > > Since you've never actually seen an APX shoulder, or > how it thus compares with Tmax, why should I? Run away, Tom. You haven't been paying attention. Over the years I have posted several examples of APX images. >>> I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot >>> 400 asa or 50 [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Matt If you do your own 35mm all you need for 120 is a suitable tank. There are many available used. I happen to prefer the stainless steel type but that is personal. If you look for old Nikor tanks make sure the lids fit the tanks and the caps fit the lids, they were sized individually. Rodinal is a useful developer but is grainier than most others. Both 100T-Max and APX-100 work well in D-76 diluted 1:1. T-Max films require closer control of development time, temperature, and agitation than non tabular grain films. For instance, to change contrast one paper grade requires about 33% change in development time for most films but only about 20% for T-Max films. Of course both temperature and agitation are equally more sensitive to variation. I think this is one reason people have trouble with these films. APX-100 has very nice tonal quality. Its a good film in 120 and was a favorite in sheet sizes until it was discontinued. Its hard to describe the difference in tonal rendition between films unless its pretty large. I suggest trying some of each. Because the ISO standard yields the minimum exposure for good shadow detail its safe to increase exposure somewhat. Most B&W films have great tollerance to overexposure. Also, the speed varies a little with the developer. The ISO standard allows any developer to be used in the measurements but requires it to be stated with the speed. This is often not done. Total variation among developers is not large. Microdol-X at full strength loses about 3/4 stop compared to D-76, Some Phenidone developers, notably the T-Max developers, Xtol, Microphen, increase speed by about 3/4 stop. At D-76 speeds there is usually enough latitude to accomodate these changes. Many films will give you a little better shadow detail with about a stop more exposure but the highlights may become a bit dense. Also, depending on the characteristic curve of the film the contrast index may vary a little with exposure. Sometimes increasing exposure has the effect of increasing contrast a bit. There are no general rules for this, you really have to test the film to see what it does. Other things can affect results. For instance, I've recently been evaluating Plus-X since someone asked me about it. I have one roll of very good negatives from a Rolleiflex 2.8E and another roll of not so good negatives from a Calumet roll holder used in a Super-D Graflex for some outdoor portraits. I haven't quite figured out what went wrong with the Graflex negatives. BTW, Plus-X seems to respond nicely to a No.8 (old Wratten K-2) filter outdoors. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > I never used APX 100, so I would not know about that. But I like TMax > 100 and TMax 400 a lot because of their very straight D/H curves, > especially wnen developped in XTol 1+1. Some people do not like straight > D/H curves because you must be more careful to give proper exposure. TMY in Xtol 1+1. Beautiful stuff, particularly rewards even lighting. Dana This might be just a matter of taste - degustibus et coloribus, you know... - but I don't like TMX. It seems to me that it's mathematically straight curve (although this is a techical exploit of Kodak!) makes my prints look flat, especially in skin tones. APX is old technology film, more grain, less sharp, but charming, say impressive for landscape and portraiture. I develop in D-76 1+1 wich is, as stated in other replies, a good combo... again: to my taste. BTW, I use it in 35mm. Jan | I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot 400 asa or 50 | asa films so I'm not that familiar with the various options at 100. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] | | Matt > This might be just a matter of taste - degustibus et coloribus, you > know... - but I don't like TMX. It seems to me that it's mathematically > straight curve (although this is a techical exploit of Kodak!) makes my > prints look flat, especially in skin tones. Just develop to a higher contrast to increase contrast in the skin tones. Be sure you expose correctly because underexposure will quickly lose you shadow detail. Unfortunately there is no escaping calibrating your exposure and development to match your enlarging system and paper. > APX is old technology film, more > grain, less sharp, but charming, say impressive for landscape and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > | > | Matt Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 10:30:00 up 4 days, 47 min, 4 users, load average: 4.22, 4.13, 4.11 > I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot 400 asa or 50 > asa films so I'm not that familiar with the various options at 100. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'll probably be using Rodinal initially but I'm open to other > developer suggestions. Under what circumstances do you photograph and what outcomes do you want? Tm films are super fine-grain but have a completely different character than APX 100. I shoot a lot of APX 100 on 120 (6x6, 6x9 and 6x12) and use strictly Rodinal 1:50 to 1:200. The grain is apparent, but enhances acutance quite nicely. Tmax, on the other hand, does not respond well to alternative dilutions, temperatures and times - IMHO. >> I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot 400 asa or 50 >> asa films so I'm not that familiar with the various options at 100. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >quite nicely. Tmax, on the other hand, does not respond well to alternative >dilutions, temperatures and times - IMHO. I just shoot for myself mostly. Walking around shots -- buildings, people, whatever. The occasional portrait of family or friends. I quite like the look I get from, say Pan-F+, but I would like an extra stop or two of speed as I find that on dull days I can't really shoot Pan-F+ handheld (especially with a filter on the camera). I use 6x6 a fair bit in a TLR but the stuff I develop myself -- which is a relatively new thing for me -- is 35mm. So the film recommendation would mostly be for a film used in a 35mm camera -- both a rangefinder and an old SLR. I quite like the 'classic' look so the APX sounds attractive. Matt The AGFA emulsions are rather grainy compared to the competition. FP4 Plus is decidely better. > >> I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot 400 asa or 50 > >> asa films so I'm not that familiar with the various options at 100. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Tm films are super fine-grain but have a completely different character than > >APX 100. I shoot a lot of APX 100 on 120 (6x6, 6x9 and 6x12) and use > >strictly Rodinal 1:50 to 1:200. The grain is apparent, but enhances acutance > >quite nicely. Tmax, on the other hand, does not respond well to alternative [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Matt > I just shoot for myself mostly. Walking around shots -- buildings, > people, whatever. The occasional portrait of family or friends. > > I quite like the look I get from, say Pan-F+, but I would like an > extra stop or two of speed as I find that on dull days I can't really > shoot Pan-F+ handheld (especially with a filter on the camera). Of course I cannot see what a dull day is to you, but if the light is flat and the sky is not in the picture, consider rating the film a half stop faster and extend development. It might work out for you. You probably won't need a filter, either. But like I said, I can't see the case at hand. (I'm imaging the work I did in Oxford, England. A lot of stone structures, people, bright overcast.) Keep in mind that with objects close to infinity, shooting just one or two stops down from wide-open usually achieves better outcomes than stopping further. Handheld 35mm becomes more possible. > So the film recommendation would mostly be for a film used in a 35mm > camera -- both a rangefinder and an old SLR. For APX100 in 35mm I would look to D76 1 instead of Rodinal. >> I just shoot for myself mostly. Walking around shots -- buildings, >> people, whatever. The occasional portrait of family or friends. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >For APX100 in 35mm I would look to D76 1 instead of Rodinal. yeah, I'm shooting in Oxford so it's the sort of thing you are thinking off. Bright overcast, with occasional dark and rainy. This sort of thing: http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/images/table_tennis.jpg or http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/images/logic_lane.jpg or http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/images/cornfield_radley.jpg These are all using faster (400) or slower (50) films. I quite often have a red or orange filter on the camera so with iso 50 film that can mean an effective speed of as little as iso 12.5 -- which is hand holdable when the light is good but when it's dull I have to open the camera right up. So, a 100 iso film OR a 400 under-rated a bit to 200 or 320 is what I'm looking for. Matt > yeah, I'm shooting in Oxford so it's the sort of thing you are > thinking off. Bright overcast, with occasional dark and rainy. What a strange coincidence! > This sort of thing: > > http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/images/table_tennis.jpg Contrasty condition. I'd rate APX in Rodinal at 50 (incident) in that case. > or > > http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/images/logic_lane.jpg Similar - the sky is blasting bright - typical bright overcast. You can't filter that sky into the scene. > I quite often have a red or orange filter on the camera so with iso 50 > film that can mean an effective speed of as little as iso 12.5 -- > which is hand holdable when the light is good but when it's dull I > have to open the camera right up. FWIW, those filters do nothing whatsoever for the sky when it is heavily overcast - because there is no blue area to filter out. And red filters tend to increase overall contrast. > So, a 100 iso film OR a 400 under-rated a bit to 200 or 320 is what > I'm looking for. :) Try going to a milder filter or none for bright overcast. > http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/images/cornfield_radley.jpg I like the selective focus. Works very nicely. Have a pint at the Turf Tavern for me, eh? >> http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/images/cornfield_radley.jpg > >I like the selective focus. Works very nicely. > >Have a pint at the Turf Tavern for me, eh? Speaking of the Turf Tavern: http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/images/lamp.jpg >>> http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/images/cornfield_radley.jpg >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.mcgrattan.f2s.com/images/lamp.jpg You cannot know how lonely that image makes me feel, even if I do not recall the lamp in particular. I miss the Oxford I knew back then. Don't ask when 'then' was, please. :) Best, jjs > And red filters tend > to increase overall contrast. They do with most films, but not with TMX or TMY. With them a red filter decreases contrast, as David Kachel noticed (and wrote about) in the early 1990s. -Peter www.desmidt.net >> And red filters tend to increase overall contrast. > They do with most films, but not with TMX or TMY. With them a red filter > decreases contrast, as David Kachel noticed (and wrote about) in the early > 1990s. Has the formula for TMX or TMY changed since then? Peter De Smidt wrote: >>They do with most films, but not with TMX or TMY. With them a red filter >>decreases contrast, as David Kachel noticed (and wrote about) in the early >>1990s. > > Has the formula for TMX or TMY changed since then? I can't answer that. What I can say is that I ran tests to verify Kachel's results a couple of years ago, and I got the same results that he did. Since then, I haven't noticed any surprising results when I use filters with TMX, but I don't use them all that often. Getting back to the TMX/APX question. Both are nice, but very different, films. The original poster should first decide how big he wants his final prints to be. Then he should figure out his optimal exposure/development combination with both films. Finally, he should make enlargements to his prefered size and compare prints. There really isn't any shortcut to this type of testing. To relate some of my own experience, I used a bit of APX in 35mm a number of years ago. I developed in Xtol and PMK. Prints at 8x10 turned out nicely with fairly large but pleasing grain. My "White Begonia" picture on my site was taken with APX100. It's under the "miscellaneous" section. In 4x5 I use TMX exclusively, mainly because it comes in readyloads. Other than wishing for more film speed, I have no complaints. -Peter De Smidt www.desmidt.net >Peter De Smidt wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >picture on my site was taken with APX100. It's under the "miscellaneous" >section. I'll primarily be shooting 35mm and the negatives will mostly be scanned for web-use. Negs I really like will be printed but not by me -- I'll either use a lab for 8 x 10 size prints or will use the scans to digitally print smaller 5x7 type prints if it's something I maybe want to pop in an envelope to send to a friend or family member. I don't imagine I'll often need prints bigger than 8 x 10 but I will definitely want to be able to print at 8 x10 (and smaller). I don't mind a bit of grain as long it has a nice 'look'. Matt > I'll primarily be shooting 35mm and the negatives will mostly be > scanned for web-use. <snip> > I don't mind a bit of grain as long it has a nice 'look'. Hi Matt, In my limited experience, scanning BW film makes the grain of the film significantly more noticable than if the negative is printed normally. Hence you might want to stick with a fine-grained film and use D76 or Xtol as the developer. You might also experiment with developing somewhat less than for standard silver printing. Paul Butzi has some comments on this which you can read at www.butzi.net. Look under the 'articles' section. You might also consider Ilford XP2 Super film, which scans very well in my experience, plus at EI 200 it's very fine grained. -Peter www.desmidt.net > In my limited experience, scanning BW film makes the grain of the film > significantly more noticable than if the negative is printed normally. I believe this is primarily due to Callier effect and can be influenced mostly the same way as if you're working with a point-source enlarger. > Hence you might want to stick with a fine-grained film and use D76 or > Xtol as the developer. You might also experiment with developing > somewhat less than for standard silver printing. Precisely. I've found that TMX typically scans well when processed for a condensor enlarger (on the order of 10-15% less development time than for a diffusion enlarger). However, if you're intent on scanning B&W negs, I'd seriously consider starting with T400CN (EI 320) or XP2 Super (EI 200). These two films are different from each other in that XP2 Super has quite a bit more shoulder. Depending on your scanner's density range, the more-shouldered XP2 might constrain highlights and make it easier to pull detail out in post-scan processing. Dana > In my limited experience, scanning BW film makes the grain of the film > significantly more noticable than if the negative is printed normally. That is a significant observation. The enlarger/lens diminishes resolution. It is a fact of physics. However, we have some issues. For example, is the scanner introducing noise that simply looks like grain? Probably. Does the enlarger 'smooth out' the grain? Certainly. > > I'll primarily be shooting 35mm and the negatives will mostly be >> scanned for web-use. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >You might also consider Ilford XP2 Super film, which scans very well in >my experience, plus at EI 200 it's very fine grained. I use XP-2 quite a bit, I also really like the Fuji Neopan 400CN which I've found to be slightly better than XP-2 [although i gather both are made by Ilford]. Both scan really nicely. The move to using more traditional rather than C-41 process films is partly for reasons of cost - I can buy a roll of traditional black and white film AND process it myself for about 50% of the cheapest processing I can get for the XP-2 and that doesn't include the cost of the XP-2 itself.[although the processing on the XP-2 would include 6x4 prints]. If I am shooting and just messing around experimenting then it's cheaper to develop myself and scan -- and if anything comes out well pay for a print for just that single image. Another reason for using non-C-41 film is that there's a much wider variety of speeds availabe -- from iso 25 all the way through to 3200. I still use the C-41 films a fair bit and if I am shooting a roll where I expect to have a lot of prints for family, or similar, then I'd just use XP2. Matt > TMax-100 or APX-100? Rodinal? > I use 6x6 a fair bit in a TLR but the stuff I develop myself -- which > is a relatively new thing for me -- is 35mm. I like to make [or at the least have the option to make] 20x24's from 35mm, so YMWV. In 35 I use TMax-100 and Microdol 1:1. Microdol FS produces almost no grain but TMax doesn't have the resolving power to take advantage of it. At 1:1 Microdol gives a very fine, sharp and even grain that is about right for the film's resolving power. APX-100 and Rodinal has a definite 'bite' to it: lots of very sharp grain; the look doesn't really complement any subject matter, IMO. At 6x6 & up it is a nice combo. Try a roll of each ... doesn't cost much. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot 400 asa or 50 > asa films so I'm not that familiar with the various options at 100. > > Would people recommend Tmax 100 or Agfa APX at the same speed? I like both films. I use Tmax-100 for 6x6 when I want really fine grain. Until I tried Xtol 1:1, I wasn't very happy with the low apparent sharpness despite the obviously high resolution and fine grain. APX 100 does not have particularly fine grain for its speed. I've bought quite a bit of it because it is cheaper than its competitors in Canadian stores. > I'll probably be using Rodinal initially but I'm open to other > developer suggestions. I'd strongly suggest Xtol for TMX. > Any other 100 asa brand that people like -- some of the smaller ones > like Foma, Efke or Maco? Maco PO-100 is amazing stuff. It is orthochromatic (insensitive to red) and very fine grained. You have to be extra-careful with the temperature of your wash water because it will reticulate. The back coating seems more sensitive to warm washing water than the emulsion side. Lucky SHD-100 is also worth a try. It is surprisingly fine grained for a communist film. It also comes in really good quality re-usable cartridges. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net : I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot 400 asa or 50 : asa films so I'm not that familiar with the various options at 100. : Would people recommend Tmax 100 or Agfa APX at the same speed? : I'll probably be using Rodinal initially but I'm open to other : developer suggestions. : Any other 100 asa brand that people like -- some of the smaller ones : like Foma, Efke or Maco? I like Tmax-100 developed in either Tmax(roll film) or Tmax-rs(sheet film). I dilute 1:9 and develop at 75F SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > I'm about to order some 100 asa film -- I usually shoot 400 asa or 50 > asa films so I'm not that familiar with the various options at 100. > > Would people recommend Tmax 100 or Agfa APX at the same speed? It sure depends on the look you want, and what you're accustomed to when printing negs. I'd say shoot a roll or two of each and see which one you get along with better. You're thinking of 35mm? Odds are you'll find the APX100 negs easier to print than TMX if you've never worked with TMax of any kind. > I'll probably be using Rodinal initially but I'm open to other > developer suggestions. I'd suggest D-76 1:1 for your initial experiments. If you're not going to do a speed test, then you probably want to bracket exposures between EI 80 and EI 100. If you soup TMX in Rodinal, I believe you'll want to bracket between EI 64 and EI 80. I've never worked with APX100 in Rodinal. Dana Try both of these films and a few others as well, such as FP4+, Delta 100 and Neopan 100 Acros and see which one you prefer, and then make it your regular film. |
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.