 |
 | 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 2005Sharpness Redux
Back to sharpness for a moment. Does pushing film inherantly reduce sharpness? The reason I'm asking is I "had" to push a roll last week -- really dimly lit room could not flash because a new born was present. Normally I avoid pushing. I pushed TMY to 800. I added about 25 per cent to my clock. XTOL 1:1. The tonality incidentally was very good to excellent, but the sharpness was disappointing -- like lens fog almost. I am curious about the fog appearance. I think by lens fog you mean flare, perhaps not. 25% increase in development is about one stop for this film. It should not produce fogging. By sharpness is often meant edge contrast or acutance, the term invented by Kodak for it. This change in time should not make a big difference in the acutance. Can you describe exactly what you are seeing in greater detail? -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > I am curious about the fog appearance. I think by lens fog you > mean flare, perhaps not. 25% increase in development is about one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > acutance. Can you describe exactly what you are seeing in greater > detail? Definately loss of edge details. Muddy. Almost out of focus. Like I'm shooting through panty hose. Lens flare. Yes that's what I meant. The bright areas are almost bleeding/haloing into the dark areas. It could be the lens itself but I've never noticed this problem unless it's something new (It's a Tamron 24mm not stellar but not crap either I've always got decent results from it). The variable, I think, was my change in developing time and the fact I've rated the film at 800. Not a big change, or so I thought. Using fresh (two day old) XTOL. Very strange. Just ran a batch of TMY through right before this roll using my normal time and no problems. I guess that's why I was wondering about sharpness and pushing. I may switch back to TMAX developer and see if my problem goes away. I'm a bit new to XTOL. Thx. > Back to sharpness for a moment. Does pushing film inherantly reduce > sharpness? The reason I'm asking is I "had" to push a roll last week -- > really dimly lit room could not flash because a new born was present. > Normally I avoid pushing. I pushed TMY to 800. I added about 25 per cent to > my clock. XTOL 1:1. The tonality incidentally was very good to excellent, > but the sharpness was disappointing -- like lens fog almost. Yes. >> Back to sharpness for a moment. Does pushing film inherantly reduce >> sharpness? The reason I'm asking is I "had" to push a roll last week [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes. Would diluting my soup 1:2 or 1:3 make a difference to acutance (N.B. XTOL)? If I wanted to push one or two stops should I stick with 400 speed films like TMY or HP5 or should I "buy" an 800 or 1600 speed film. Thx. >Would diluting my soup 1:2 or 1:3 make a difference to acutance (N.B. XTOL)? >If I wanted to push one or two stops should I stick with 400 speed films >like TMY or HP5 or should I "buy" an 800 or 1600 speed film. Thx. I would use an EI 800 film such as Ilford's Delta 3200. Also I would recommend using Microphen as opposed to Xtol. Or perhaps T-Max RS. JD - www.puresilver.org >Back to sharpness for a moment. Does pushing film inherantly reduce >sharpness? The reason I'm asking is I "had" to push a roll last week -- >really dimly lit room could not flash because a new born was present. >Normally I avoid pushing. I pushed TMY to 800. I added about 25 per cent to >my clock. XTOL 1:1. The tonality incidentally was very good to excellent, >but the sharpness was disappointing -- like lens fog almost. I wouldn't have pushed it that far. A 25% increase in development is more like 2.5 stops IMO. 5~10% should have been adequate. And yes, pushing always degrades the image quality. The increase in granularity can cause the image to seem very unsharp. JD - www.puresilver.org > Back to sharpness for a moment. Does pushing film inherantly reduce > sharpness? The reason I'm asking is I "had" to push a roll last week -- > really dimly lit room could not flash because a new born was present. > Normally I avoid pushing. I pushed TMY to 800. I added about 25 per cent to > my clock. XTOL 1:1. The tonality incidentally was very good to excellent, > but the sharpness was disappointing -- like lens fog almost. TMY pushes very poorly, as do most tabular-grain films. On 4/12/2005 10:42 AM UC spake thus: >> Back to sharpness for a moment. Does pushing film inherantly reduce >> sharpness? The reason I'm asking is I "had" to push a roll last week [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > TMY pushes very poorly, as do most tabular-grain films. Wait a minute--up to now, you've been telling us that it's impossible to push film--*at all*. Now you seem to be qualifying it. Do we now hear you backing down from that position?  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 4/12/2005 10:42 AM UC spake thus: Do yourself a favor and ignore the troll SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com On 4/12/2005 11:12 AM Frank Pittel spake thus: > : On 4/12/2005 10:42 AM UC spake thus: > > Do yourself a favor and ignore the troll Who the hell appointed you Lord High Executioner & NetCop? 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 4/12/2005 11:12 AM Frank Pittel spake thus: : > : > : On 4/12/2005 10:42 AM UC spake thus: : > : > Do yourself a favor and ignore the troll : Who the hell appointed you Lord High Executioner & NetCop? I did SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com OK, technical correction: You can push film, but it doesn't get you anything, no real speed increase. It won't ruin Tri-X nearly so quickly as it will ruin T-grain films. > On 4/12/2005 10:42 AM UC spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by > the late Hunter S. Thompson > TMY pushes very poorly, as do most tabular-grain films. >>"Speedpushing does not work: it gives a steeper curve in the midrange tonal scale, but no real gain in shadow speed." Which one is it, Scarpathetic? You first post that pushing doesn't work at all, then you say some films push poorly. Once again you prove that you don't know your a.s from a hole in the ground. Good thing this is being archived, so future readers will know to ignore your pathetic attempts at getting attention. > Which one is it, Scarpathetic? You first post that pushing doesn't work > at all, then you say some films push poorly. Once again you prove that > you don't know your a.s from a hole in the ground. As annoying as MS/UC can sometimes be, he has a pretty clear meaning here. 1) Extending development has very little effect on film sensitivity. A "pushed" underexposure is still underexposed. 2) Extending development can make underexposures easier to print. 3) TMX and TMY films do not appear to give as acceptable results when underexposed as Tri-X 400 does. Kodak claims exceptional underexposure latitude for all of the T-max films. This appears to hold up really well in the case of Tmax 3200 TMZ, but UC is hardly the only person to observe that the slower T-max films seem to be particularly unkind to underexposures. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net : 1) Extending development has very little effect on film sensitivity. : A "pushed" underexposure is still underexposed. True. : 2) Extending development can make underexposures easier to print. It makes the midtones easie to print. The shadows are still underexposed and thanks to the extended development the highlights would be unprintable. : 3) TMX and TMY films do not appear to give as acceptable results when : underexposed as Tri-X 400 does. You can get away with about a stop of underexposure with Tmax films. Never try to "comensate" by extending development time. You will end up with a negative to constrasty to print. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com More or less, this is what I said. Some films 'tolerate' overdevelopment better than others, but none really benefits from it. > : 1) Extending development has very little effect on film sensitivity. > : A "pushed" underexposure is still underexposed. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > ------------------- > fwp@deepthought.com ... >Kodak claims exceptional underexposure latitude for all of >the T-max films. This appears to hold up really well in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Peter. apr1305 from Lloyd Erlick, I use a lot of Kodak T-Max 400 film (TMY) in 120 format. I think it should be labeled EI 200. To me, it seems like a superlative 200 film that performs very well pushed to 400. I like Kodak P3200 (TMZ) as well, but again, I regard it as an exceptionally good film at a lower EI than the maker suggests (I set my meter to 800), and a good performer when pushed. I have always hated the results if I underexpose any of the Kodak tabular grain films. I happen to like shadow detail, and underexposure does not permit shadow detail. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > I use a lot of Kodak T-Max 400 film (TMY) in 120 format. > > I think it should be labeled EI 200. To me, it seems like a > superlative 200 film that performs very well pushed to 400. > [...] It could also be that you are a photographer who knows how to meter properly. :) > > I use a lot of Kodak T-Max 400 film (TMY) in 120 format. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It could also be that you are a photographer who knows how to meter > properly. :) The ISO standard for B&W films is defective and should be revised. ALL films need more exposure than ISO calls for. >> I use a lot of Kodak T-Max 400 film (TMY) in 120 format. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >It could also be that you are a photographer who knows how to meter >properly. :) apr1505 from Lloyd Erlick, Well, perhaps so, but metering the same way in each case, meter set at 200 and at 400, I find the results at 200 much more to my liking. Is there such a thing as proper metering? My way works for me, which only means that my negatives yield prints that I like. Since I make portraits, I like shadow detail and nice tonality in skin tones. I think a big part of the issue for me -- in terms of Kodak T-Max 400 (TMY) -- is that this film is very tolerant of over-exposure. (I do not find it tolerant of under-exposure.) This means that I can get plenty of detail in the shadows, without blocking the highlights. Blocked highlights were reputedly a problem with this film, particularly when it was introduced. But more careful development helped a lot there, and I routinely get very easily printed negatives. Of course, saying the film tolerates over-exposure could also be interpreted to mean the film is slower than advertised, so which stance do we take? regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > Is there such a thing as proper metering? Only if you like to take pictures of step tablets. 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/ >> Is there such a thing as proper metering? > >Only if you like to take pictures of step tablets. wasn't there a historical figure who came down from the mountain carrying step tablets ?? --le > "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> > > > Is there such a thing as proper metering? > >Only if you like to take pictures of step tablets. > wasn't there a historical figure who came down from the mountain > carrying step tablets ?? The Zone Commandments? 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 use a lot of Kodak T-Max 400 film (TMY) in 120 format. >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > net: www.heylloyd.com > ________________________________ I discovered a long time ago with negative films, colour or B&W, to err on the generous side when using an incident light meter in a photographic portraiture studio. I habitually increase the exposure indicated by the light meter by half an f/stop for most subjects and even one f/stop when photographing unusually dark toned subjects. For me, there is nothing worse than trying to get a good print from a negative which has received insufficient exposure at the picture taking stage. Perhaps I am giving exposure compensation rather than deliberately down rating the emulsion speed to allow for the camera to subject distance, which a through the lens meter would automatically adjust for, bearing in mind that hand meters are independent from the camera. ... >I discovered a long time ago with negative films, colour or B&W, to err on >the generous side when using an incident light meter in a photographic [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >which a through the lens meter would automatically adjust for, bearing in >mind that hand meters are independent from the camera. apr1705 from Lloyd Erlick, I'm sure you could achieve the same end by reducing the EI entered into the meter, and getting used to it. All the same in the end, really. Indeed, there is nothing worse than struggling with an underexposed negative. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > ... >>I discovered a long time ago with negative films, colour or B&W, to err on [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > net: www.heylloyd.com > ________________________________ I probably could get the same or similar by using a lower I.S.O. number Lloyd, but my current method suits me fine. Thank you. |
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.