- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
if that's the case forgetaboutit
if that's the case forgetaboutitIf Pan-X were still around it would presumably have the same backing paper issues as TMX/TMY etc.
Nah, I'll pass.
Any great photographer can make the current crop of films not just sing but scream with amazing visuals. Really learn one or two great films and become a better photographer, learn how to interpret tones in color so that they work in B&W.
Otherwise, constantly pining for what is gone is like being oblivious to the smile of who could be your soulmate because you can't let go of the love you lost.....long ago.
At one time Ilford did consider a "Delta 25".
The only real "hole" in the market (if there is one) might be for slow films, not high quality/resolution films. I'd argue tabular grained films such as T Max 100 and Delta 100 offer as much image quality as one could reasonably need. Older technology films had to be considerably slower to achieve the high resolution and fineness of grain offered by today's medium speed tabular grained films.
Am I right in assuming that TMax 100 has perhaps the same granularity and sharpness/resolution? And all that at a couple stops more speed? So if they reintroduced Panatomic-X they would practically compete with themselves? And the sales of one product would eat into the sales of the other? Why would they do it?
I may be wrong, but I thought T-grain films required less silver than conventional films for a similar speed. If true, it would seem to be a smart financial decision by manufacturers to move to T- grain emulsions. If I recall, the push towards T-grain occurred close to the time the Hunt brothers were buying up silver.
The "look" is mostly imagined. People can't really tell the difference.
Nostalgia is right on.
... but i would also posit that if the sample were restricted to tmx/tmy and eastman 5222 that the success rate would be quite high...
Nonsense. In these newer films Sugar Ray would not look as athletic nor Jake LaMotta as dangerous in those Madison Square Garden contestsWell, besides being finer grained, tabular grained films don't have a look. That's a myth.
Can you say the same thing about Kodak HIE?
i would very respectfully argue the other side.
i would posit that most people here, with practice, could correctly identify randomly shown b+w images from t-grain films and images from cubic-grained films with a statistically significant success rate. perhaps an extreme example, but i would also posit that if the sample were restricted to tmx/tmy and eastman 5222 that the success rate would be quite high.
besides... nostalgia is no longer what it used to be.
...and developed in Microdol-X 1:3...ahhhhhhh......Plus, saying Panatomic-X is loaded in my camera sounds friggin cool.
...and developed in Microdol-X 1:3...ahhhhhhh...
Definitely! But next time, capitalize the "X".
PS -- Panatomic-X (120) in Microdol-X (1:3) was my standard until I moved up to large format. Microdol-X stayed as my developer for a little while until HC-110 took over. I enlarged the 120 Pan-X to 15"x15".
The "look" is mostly imagined. People can't really tell the difference
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?