 |
 | 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 / September 2003The B&W situation as I see it
Of possible use: http://www.acecam.com/cr3index.html You do realize of course that whatever the media says is hot becomes hot. If the media come out and says that digital is already old hat, and people don't like it once they own a digital camera, then I bet it will spread like wildfire throughout the public, and people will start buying film and demanding film cameras again! Kodak has, however, been very lax (and that's being kind) in promoting and marketing their BEST B&W materials. They came out with a group of new B&W products in the mid-80's: T-Max films (featuring tabular grain structures) and Elite graded paper. The T-Max films are not without their critics (among whom I number myself). The T-Max films (100, 400, 3200) are very fine-grained, (a desirable trait) but are very difficult to work with. They have not improved their conventional-grain films however. This leaves the consumer in a quandary, as you have a choice between films designed in the 50's (125 ISO Plus-X and 400 ISO Tri-X) or newer films that are very tough to deal with. Instead, many serious workers choose Ilford products. They have improved their conventional-grain films (50, 125, 400 ISO) and added an advanced-technology (tabular-grain) line called Delta (also 100, 400, 3200), just like Kodak's T-Max line. Ilford's Delta films are much easier to work with, and their conventional-grain films are now superior to Kodak's. Ilford is still making graded paper, though they dropped their cheaper line called Ilfobrom and now sell only Ilfobrom Gallerie, which only makes sense if you want at least the best materials to remain available. Graded papers are superior to variable-contrast papers in tonal rendition in the deeper tones, though they are less flexible in use. I use both, with graded paper going for exhibition work and variable contrast paper going for casual stuff. Kodak makes no graded or portrait paper at all now. They used to make a warm-toned portrait paper called Ektalure: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/g9/g9.jhtml Elite was a super-high quality museum-grade material: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/g19/g19.jhtml In the distant past, Ansco (later called GAF) and DuPont made wonderful B&W materials. I think Agfa has also discontinued all their graded papers. On 9/15/2003 10:38 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: In a generally informative and useful post, you said: > [...] The T-Max films (100, 400, > 3200) are very fine-grained, (a desirable trait) but are very > difficult to work with. and > [...] Ilford's Delta films are much easier to work with [...] Please define "easier/more difficult to work with". Not disputing your assertion, just seeking more detailed information.  SignatureAt Boston/Logan airport last Friday, I saw on a Delta departures/arrivals screen this Windows error dialog in front of the grid of flights: "At least one service failed to start..." I took a photo of it. I thought: "I'm glad I don't run Windows. I'm glad I'm not flying Delta today." - Recent posting on Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/) > On 9/15/2003 10:38 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Not disputing your assertion, just seeking more detailed information. Two basic problems: 1. T-Max films change contrast quicker during development. This means that the slightest error in time or temperature can mean a big swing in contrast, and excessive contrast is far too easy to get. Of course, if your developer is slightly too strong or too weak, the same thing will happen. Factors that would not seriously affect Tri-X, for example, will ruin TMY. 2. The shape of the characteristic curve, particularly with TMY, is 'U'-shaped. This means that highlights have MORE contrast than mid-tones. Tri-X has an opposite character: mid-tones and shadows have more contrast than highlights. This makes it easier to control the contrast of most outdoor scenes, as most outdoor scenes include the sky. The shadows in Tri-X have more contrast, and the flare in any lens caused by light coming from the sky tends to lower the contrast in the shadows. Likewise, for the sky, the lower highlight contrast keeps the sky from getting too heavy in density. Thus, Tri-X and most conventional films will give a more pleasing rendition of most outdoor scenes. So, when used outdoors, TMY tends to have very bright, contrasty skies that are often too dense to print, coupled with flat-looking mid-tones and shadows. >> On 9/15/2003 10:38 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > same thing will happen. Factors that would not seriously affect > Tri-X, for example, will ruin TMY. It is not all that difficult. Sure the slope of the curve of CI vs. temperature, concentration, etc., is somewhat steeper, but it is not something requireing the second hand on a watch. I use an old GraLab timer and things work out just fine. > 2. The shape of the characteristic curve, particularly with TMY, is > 'U'-shaped. I have never seen that. I developed it in TMax-RS developer, D-23, DK-25 (two bath), and Xtol. The main differences in the curve shape seems to be with Xtol 1+1 where the curve is closer to a straight line (shorter toe) than any other combination I have ever seen. > This means that highlights have MORE contrast than > mid-tones. Your description seems more true of 4147 Plus-X in HC-110 (dilution B) than TMY in Xtol. > Tri-X has an opposite character: mid-tones and shadows > have more contrast than highlights. I never noticed that with Tri-X 4164 in HC-110 dilution B. On the contrary, shadow contrast of Tri-X was poor due to its rather long toe. You had to "overexpose" it to get off that toe. > This makes it easier to control > the contrast of most outdoor scenes, as most outdoor scenes include [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > skies that are often too dense to print, coupled with flat-looking > mid-tones and shadows. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 10:20pm up 25 days, 7:45, 2 users, load average: 2.36, 2.22, 2.13 : > David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message : > news:<3F6605F8.1080000@but.us.chickens>... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] : > same thing will happen. Factors that would not seriously affect : > Tri-X, for example, will ruin TMY. : It is not all that difficult. Sure the slope of the curve of CI vs. : temperature, concentration, etc., is somewhat steeper, but it is not : something requireing the second hand on a watch. I use an old GraLab : timer and things work out just fine. I went to the local Walmart and got a couple of electronic kitchen timers. : > : > 2. The shape of the characteristic curve, particularly with TMY, is : > 'U'-shaped. : I have never seen that. I developed it in TMax-RS developer, D-23, DK-25 : (two bath), and Xtol. The main differences in the curve shape seems to : be with Xtol 1+1 where the curve is closer to a straight line (shorter : toe) than any other combination I have ever seen. : > This means that highlights have MORE contrast than : > mid-tones. : Your description seems more true of 4147 Plus-X in HC-110 (dilution B) : than TMY in Xtol. : > Tri-X has an opposite character: mid-tones and shadows : > have more contrast than highlights. : I never noticed that with Tri-X 4164 in HC-110 dilution B. On the : contrary, shadow contrast of Tri-X was poor due to its rather long toe. : You had to "overexpose" it to get off that toe. : > This makes it easier to control : > the contrast of most outdoor scenes, as most outdoor scenes include [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : > skies that are often too dense to print, coupled with flat-looking : > mid-tones and shadows. Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the negatives. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com [SNIP]> > Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the negatives. > -- Dare say that Mike needs to begin to use some of the Zone techniques he so adamantly abhors? : [SNIP]> : > : > Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the : negatives. : > -- : Dare say that Mike needs to begin to use some of the Zone techniques he so : adamantly abhors? I never said anything about the zone system!! :-) Although if scarpitti is going to ever get good results from the Tmax line of film he's going to have to. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the negatives. Not the problem. The problem is that skies are brighter than ground, and are light sources to boot. This means: 1. The 'shadow' areas will receive flare light from the sky, weaking their contrast. 2. The sky areas will be denser than the shadow areas. Now, Tri-X 'fights' this by having harder gradation in the shadows and softer gradation in the highlights. TMY has the worst possible situation, a steeper, higher curve in the highlights (more density and contrast), where you don't need more density, and a softer, lower curve in the shadows (less density and contrast), where you need more contrast and desnisty. > > Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the negatives. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > curve in the shadows (less density and contrast), where you need more > contrast and desnisty. I don't know if my experience is strange, but my skies with TMY and no filter print almost black depending on the sky. It is almost as if I were using an orange filter. I do think Kodak's committment to B&W is very strong and on top of that I think that TMX is just about the best film in the world. If you have developed color film before you know how to control time and temp accurately and if you test your film first (zoning) TMX and TMY give incredible results. I use medium format and develop with Rodinol with results that please me - very subjective. I have tested Acros and find it to be an excellent film too. Great highlight and shadow detail, good mid-tones too. But I would certainly not give up on Kodak, my first choice. They have demonstrated that they are committed to B&W users with their new factory and films. And while we are at it no one offers the wealth of information and data about almost anything photographic as Kodak. B&W is in good shape from the supply side. The problem is that most people use color so the B&W market has shrunk. Those few of us left should be delighted with the choices of films and papers available. Granted not as many as years ago, but still a large selection - enough for most tastes. Frank Rome, NY > > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I do think Kodak's committment to B&W is very strong and on top of that I think that TMX is just about the > best film in the world. It has soft mid-tones, but TMY is the real problem child. >If you have developed color film before you know how to control time and temp > accurately and if you test your film first (zoning) TMX and TMY give incredible results. TMY is not good for 35mm workers using condenser enlargers. Mid-tones are too flat when the highlights are under control. Secondly, slight changes in developer activity are normal and hard to prevent. These can affect T-Max films much more than conventional ones. Though you and I may be meticulous in our lab standards, not everyone is or can be, and for them even slight overdevelopment of TMY is hard to prevent and can be disasterous. > I use medium > format and develop with Rodinol with results that please me - very subjective. In 35mm, it's a little different. > I have tested Acros and find > it to be an excellent film too. Great highlight and shadow detail, good mid-tones too. But I would certainly > not give up on Kodak, my first choice. They have demonstrated that they are committed to B&W users with their > new factory and films. Whither Kodabromide, Elite, Medalist, Ektalure, Royal Pan, Velox, Super-XX? > And while we are at it no one offers the wealth of information and data about almost anything photographic as > Kodak. B&W is in good shape from the supply side. The problem is that most people use color so the B&W market > has shrunk. Those few of us left should be delighted with the choices of films and papers available. Granted > not as many as years ago, but still a large selection - enough for most tastes. > > Frank Rome, NY mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message > > TMY is not good for 35mm workers using condenser enlargers. Mid-tones > are too flat when the highlights are under control. Secondly, slight [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be, and for them even slight overdevelopment of TMY is hard to prevent > and can be disasterous. Sounds like agitation problems to me. > mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sounds like agitation problems to me. Tri-X ISO 400 curves: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f002_0357ac.gif http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f002_0355ac.gif T-Max 400 TMY curves: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f002_0509ac.gif http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f002_0507ac.gif You'll note the considerable difference in gradation (contrast) between highlights and mid-tones with these two films. TMX seems to have similar problems, as I looked at Kodak's published curves, but I have seldom used it. Of course there's no relationship to 'agitation problems'. : mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message > : > TMY is not good for 35mm workers using condenser enlargers. Mid-tones : > are too flat when the highlights are under control. Secondly, slight [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : > be, and for them even slight overdevelopment of TMY is hard to prevent : > and can be disasterous. : Sounds like agitation problems to me. It sounds like scarpitti has a lot of process control problems. Problems that start with improper film and development testing. Then of course there's the lack of any attempt to control contrast in the negatives. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that start with improper film and development testing. Then of course there's > the lack of any attempt to control contrast in the negatives. I don't have any 'process conrol problems'. The problem is the shape of the film charatersitic curve, period. > I don't have any 'process conrol problems'. The problem is the shape > of the film charatersitic curve, period. Process control might very well be the issue for some of us. I do dearly like Tri-X Pro and admit that I'm rather stuck on it and possibly due only to habits that have worked, but this process control issue is a good point. The T-grain type films _are_ very sensitive to process control compared to Tri-X. Kodak uses precise methods of determining developed characteristics. They probably don't use the development methods we do, and they may even use methods that are impossible for the photographer - possibly spraying the exposed film with developer _I don't know_ and I hope to learn here how they do develop. Regardless, it is clear to me that possibly, just possibly we might have to consider new ways to control temperature and agitation. Jobo might be a good thing to consider next. (I'm down to half a freezer of old film. Never thought I'd live to see this happen. But that's a Good Thing(tm). :) ) Replying to my own post - yes, I see from the chart graphic posted earlier that Kodak says it developed in "small tank", but my skepticism has the better of me. It would be very cool if they would be perfectly specific - one sheet in a very small tank, for example. > > > I don't have any 'process conrol problems'. The problem is the shape > > of the film charatersitic curve, period. > > Process control might very well be the issue for some of us. Here's the deal: No matter how little or much development is given, the highlight region ___is___ contrastier than the mid-tone region. With some developers the effect is greater than with others, but no developer will give an S-shaped curve like Tri-X Pan. Tri-X Pro is similar to T-Max 400 in its curve shape. > I do dearly like Tri-X Pro and admit that I'm rather stuck on it and > possibly due only to habits that have worked, but this process control [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Never thought I'd live to see this happen. But that's a Good Thing(tm). :) > ) : : > I don't have any 'process conrol problems'. The problem is the shape : > of the film charatersitic curve, period. : Process control might very well be the issue for some of us. : I do dearly like Tri-X Pro and admit that I'm rather stuck on it and : possibly due only to habits that have worked, but this process control [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : Never thought I'd live to see this happen. But that's a Good Thing(tm). :) : ) If you like Tri-X then you should use it. I don't see this as a contest to win people over to Tmax films. However anyone that can say that TMY isn't suitable for outdoor or landscape use is demonstrating a lack of knowledge about TMY, photography and general stupidity. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > : > I don't have any 'process conrol problems'. The problem is the shape [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > or landscape use is demonstrating a lack of knowledge about TMY, photography and general > stupidity. Kodak says TXP is suited for low-flare studio use. Here: http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/o3/O3wp2.jhtml "TRI-X Pan Professional / TXP Especially suited to low-flare interior tungsten or flash lighting. Retouching surface on both sides. Excellent gradation and brilliant highlights. Medium contrast, moderate degree of enlargement, wide exposure latitude." TMY has a very similar curve to TXP.....and both are quite different from Tri-X Pan's curve...the conclusion is? Wahetever applies to TXP applies to TMY. Didn't you know this? Awwwww! I did. So who's stupid? : > > Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the negatives. : > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : > curve in the shadows (less density and contrast), where you need more : > contrast and desnisty. : I don't know if my experience is strange, but my skies with TMY and no filter print almost black depending on : the sky. It is almost as if I were using an orange filter. It must depend on the conditions where you're at. Here in the midwest in the summer with the humidity so high that the sky is white to begin with and that is in addition to the 12 zones between the white sky and the shadows. I haven't gotten filters to help and even the zone system leaves a lot to be desired. : I do think Kodak's committment to B&W is very strong and on top of that I think that TMX is just about the : best film in the world. If you have developed color film before you know how to control time and temp [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : not give up on Kodak, my first choice. They have demonstrated that they are committed to B&W users with their : new factory and films. Have you tried TMX with the Tmax developer diluted 1:9?? The grain is non-existent and the tonality has to be seen to be believed. As alway you need to run exposure and development tests. : And while we are at it no one offers the wealth of information and data about almost anything photographic as : Kodak. B&W is in good shape from the supply side. The problem is that most people use color so the B&W market : has shrunk. Those few of us left should be delighted with the choices of films and papers available. Granted : not as many as years ago, but still a large selection - enough for most tastes. : Frank Rome, NY SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > [...] the white sky and the shadows. I haven't gotten filters to help and > even the zone system leaves a lot to be desired. :) Can't filter unless there's a color to contrast with your filter. > : I do think Kodak's committment to B&W is very strong and on top of that I think that TMX is just about the > : best film in the world. How can you say that? Where's the Olde Pharte spirit? Tri-X 4164 is a great film. I don't know why Kodak ever went to TMX, unless it was to cut down on silver content just to make some bean-counter happy. >>Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the negatives. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Now, Tri-X 'fights' this by having harder gradation in the shadows and > softer gradation in the highlights. It sure did not when I was testing it. It had a relatively long toe (4164). > TMY has the worst possible > situation, a steeper, higher curve in the highlights (more density and > contrast), where you don't need more density, and a softer, lower > curve in the shadows (less density and contrast), where you need more > contrast and desnisty. Not when I tested it. It had the closest thing to a straight line of any film I have ever tested (XTol 1+1). Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 2:40pm up 26 days, 5 min, 2 users, load average: 4.36, 4.19, 4.07 >>>Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the negatives. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Not when I tested it. It had the closest thing to a straight line of any >film I have ever tested (XTol 1+1). I get the same result using TMAX RS. Using D-76 I get a very, very slight shoulder -- it still has a straighter curve than anything else I've ever run into. SignatureThor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls.com But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud > >>>Sounds like someone who needs to learn to control the contrast of the negatives. > >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > slight shoulder -- it still has a straighter curve than anything else > I've ever run into. Not according to tests I've seen: See: TMY in T-Max developer http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/tm1+9-tm400.gif vs: HP5 in FX-39 developer http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-hp5-135.gif or Delta 400 in FX-39 developer The point is that TMY does not shoulder off as do many other films, and that's what is needed for outdoor work. http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/fx-39-id400-135.gif > > David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message > > news:<3F6605F8.1080000@but.us.chickens>... [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > be with Xtol 1+1 where the curve is closer to a straight line (shorter > toe) than any other combination I have ever seen. It's true, and we discussed this a few weeks ago. > > This means that highlights have MORE contrast than > > mid-tones. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > contrary, shadow contrast of Tri-X was poor due to its rather long toe. > You had to "overexpose" it to get off that toe. I'm talking about Tri-X pan 35mm. > > This makes it easier to control > > the contrast of most outdoor scenes, as most outdoor scenes include [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > skies that are often too dense to print, coupled with flat-looking > > mid-tones and shadows. I generally agree on your assessment of TMY, and I've had some of the same problems with 35mm TMY. TMY seems particularly sensitive to the developer, giving very different responses to different developers. It is also very sensitive to time, temperature, and agitation. Too vigorous agitation makes the highlights nearly impossible to print, although they show up nicely in the negative. TMX is a very different animal and is much easier to tame. It's characteristic curve in D-76 1+1 is very linear - enough so that it is good for interpositives and masks. I've had very good results in the field with it. I haven't used Tri-X for a few years, but it used to be very well behaved, even if a little grainy. My current favorite is Ilford's FP4+, mostly for zonehead work. My previous favorite roll film was Verichrome Pan, unfortunately now discontinued. It was a really fine film. I had hopes from the advertising hype that Plux-X had been changed to behave more like VP, but I guess not. I see complaints about excessive contrast and fussy processing. I'd like to hear a more detailed critique. > > > David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message > > > news:<3F6605F8.1080000@but.us.chickens>... [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > > skies that are often too dense to print, coupled with flat-looking > > > mid-tones and shadows. >>> This means that highlights have MORE contrast than mid-tones. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I'm talking about Tri-X pan 35mm. Looking at the graph of Kodak Tri-X Pan Film (the kind only available in 35mm and roll film) shows me a film with medium toe, not one that would have more contrast in the shadows than in the highlights. The only film I am aware of that has very high shadow contrast and falling off in the highlights would be Kodak Recording Film 2475 developped long enough in D-19 that you would probably hate to use because of its high granularity. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 2:45pm up 26 days, 10 min, 2 users, load average: 4.08, 4.08, 4.04 : > David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message : > news:<3F6605F8.1080000@but.us.chickens>... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] : > same thing will happen. Factors that would not seriously affect : > Tri-X, for example, will ruin TMY. : It is not all that difficult. Sure the slope of the curve of CI vs. : temperature, concentration, etc., is somewhat steeper, but it is not : something requireing the second hand on a watch. I use an old GraLab : timer and things work out just fine. Of course since Scarpitti has perfect process control this isn't an issue for him. : > : > 2. The shape of the characteristic curve, particularly with TMY, is : > 'U'-shaped. : I have never seen that. I developed it in TMax-RS developer, D-23, DK-25 : (two bath), and Xtol. The main differences in the curve shape seems to : be with Xtol 1+1 where the curve is closer to a straight line (shorter : toe) than any other combination I have ever seen. According to Kodak the curve for the Tmax films is a straight line when used with Tmax developers. : > This means that highlights have MORE contrast than : > mid-tones. : Your description seems more true of 4147 Plus-X in HC-110 (dilution B) : than TMY in Xtol. : > Tri-X has an opposite character: mid-tones and shadows : > have more contrast than highlights. : I never noticed that with Tri-X 4164 in HC-110 dilution B. On the : contrary, shadow contrast of Tri-X was poor due to its rather long toe. : You had to "overexpose" it to get off that toe. : > This makes it easier to control : > the contrast of most outdoor scenes, as most outdoor scenes include [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : > skies that are often too dense to print, coupled with flat-looking : > mid-tones and shadows. Of course since scarpitti employs no contrast controls it would be nearly impossible for him to get good results with the Tmax films. The best he could hope for is to get lucky from time to time. With Tmax film, improper film speed testing and improper development testing means scarpitti like results. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com : On 9/15/2003 10:38 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: : In a generally informative and useful post, you said: : > [...] The T-Max films (100, 400, : > 3200) are very fine-grained, (a desirable trait) but are very : > difficult to work with. : and : > [...] Ilford's Delta films are much easier to work with [...] : Please define "easier/more difficult to work with". : Not disputing your assertion, just seeking more detailed information. The problem that scarpitti seems to be having is that hasn't learned how to process film consistently. The Tmax films are very sensitive to changes in temperature, agitation, and time. In order to get predictable results with Tmax films you need to be able to keep those three consistent. You also need to perform speed and development time tests. On the positive side if you take the time to run the tests and expend the energy to maintain consistency in processing and in my opinion use the Tmax developers 1:9@75F you will be amazed by the results. The grain is nearly non-existent, and the tonality has to be seen to be believed. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com I've never had good results with TMX in 35mm, nor did the ownwer of the store where I purchase my photo gear... The two of us have completelly diferent shooting styles. Jorge > : On 9/15/2003 10:38 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > you will be amazed by the results. The grain is nearly non-existent, and the > tonality has to be seen to be believed. Did you use the Zone system?? Also how did you develop the film and what type of testing did you do? : I've never had good results with TMX in 35mm, nor did the ownwer of : the store where I purchase my photo gear... : The two of us have completelly diferent shooting styles. : Jorge : > : On 9/15/2003 10:38 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: : > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] : > you will be amazed by the results. The grain is nearly non-existent, and the : > tonality has to be seen to be believed. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > Did you use the Zone system?? Also how did you develop the film and what > type of testing did you do? No matter WHAT you do, you cannot change the basic problem with the film: it's curve shape. > : I've never had good results with TMX in 35mm, nor did the ownwer of > : the store where I purchase my photo gear... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > : > you will be amazed by the results. The grain is nearly non-existent, and the > : > tonality has to be seen to be believed. >many serious workers choose Ilford products. I use only Ilford film and paper (though I try not to be too serious about anything.) I think there will be a niche market for B&W silver based materials for a long time to come, but I think it is important for consumers to support the one major company that continues to invest in R&D for B&W materials. Chris Ellinger Ann Arbor, MI > ...R&D for B&W materials. Speaking of R&D how is the quadrupling of film speed reaserch going? I think it about a year since a report on the subject appeared in Photo Technique. How about ISO 500 Plus X, 1600 Tri X and EI 12,800 Delta.? I've noticed that the very latest digitals are still hung up at 400. For some reason I'm the only one mentioning the subject. The B&W situation as I see it will be much improved by the quadrupling. Dan Let me play devil's advocate here... Why is quadrupling of film speed good? A 12,800 speed film will be unuseable outdoors... You will have to carry a changing bag with you to load the camera... You would have to have a 3 stop neutral density filter on the lens in bright light, adding more reflective surfaces... I don't see an advantage... 1600 Tri-x will be barely useable outdoors, and only in subdued light... The tiny F stops will add diffraction problems... I would rather see improved range of useable zones, and improved tonality... Denny > > ...R&D for B&W materials. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > For some reason I'm the only one mentioning the subject. The B&W > situation as I see it will be much improved by the quadrupling. Dan > Let me play devil's advocate here... > Why is quadrupling of film speed good? You'd have finer-grained films at existing speeds, and MUCH faster films at existing grain levels. > A 12,800 speed film will be > unuseable outdoors... The fastest films we have now are actually only about 640-1000 EI. TRUE speeds of 1600-4000 would be nice! > You will have to carry a changing bag with you to > load the camera... You would have to have a 3 stop neutral density filter on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > For some reason I'm the only one mentioning the subject. The B&W > > situation as I see it will be much improved by the quadrupling. Dan In the past I've used lots of FP-4, and liked it very much. Nowadays, due to local availability, I'm using only Kodak (125PX and 400TX). The point is that I've seen some comments re defective emulsions in Ilford films; never saw one re Kodak's or heard about it in the past. Jorge > >many serious workers choose Ilford products. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Chris Ellinger > Ann Arbor, MI Over the years I have gone from Ilford to Agfa, both for films and paper. The film is very adaptable in the extraordinary economical Rodinal and the papers are very flexible with respect to toning. It is a shame that Agfa don't do more to improve. On 15/9/03 6:33 pm, in article 0o0cmv4jhl155jt3i898945752s4e547eu@4ax.com, >> many serious workers choose Ilford products. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Chris Ellinger > Ann Arbor, MI Interesting that Kodak now makes graded color papers (Portra, Supra, and Ultra) but has discontinued graded black and white. Fortunately, Polycontrast has improved a lot. I tried it again recently, and I was very impressed with the improved gradation and image quality. Graded papers are readily available from offshore manufacturers both in Europe and Japan. The larger photo outlets carry quite a variety. That would seem to say there is a market. Did Kodak just not work hard enough to gain it? Kodak seems to have a very local outlook, and I don't really think they realize that they are no longer a monopoly. They really need some good domestic competition, like Ansco and DuPont provided in the past. > Of possible use: > http://www.acecam.com/cr3index.html [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > I think Agfa has also discontinued all their graded papers. > Interesting that Kodak now makes graded color papers (Portra, Supra, and > Ultra) but has discontinued graded black and white. Fortunately, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > they realize that they are no longer a monopoly. They really need some good > domestic competition, like Ansco and DuPont provided in the past. Yes both Kodak, with Ektalure in particular, and Agfa, with Portriga, never advertised their papers, and yet, amoung printers, they were perhaps 2 of the most versatle papers around. Luckily I was able to buy around 3000 sheets of Ektalure before it sold out. I wasn't so lucky with Portriga. These big guys seem to look more to the amature market for sales and ignore the sure, steady, long term sales to professionals who will always buy them. Its a sad commentary. Alexis www.alexisneel.com |
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.