Have you every used any Aviphot film? It has a massive drop off in the shadows. In a normal contrast scene, if you expose for those, your upper midtones will blow out.
If you expose it properly in a low-contrast scene, you get plenty of shadow detail.
You might want to actually take a look at a box of HP5 Plus or FP4 Plus, you might find some shocking surprise printed on itNeither Kodak nor Ilford have an ISO rating on their boxes. Do you think FP4 has an ISO of 4 and HP5 has an ISO of 5?
This being, of course, the sort of information that prospective purchasers can really benefit from if they are planning on spending their film buying dollars.
Yes, it is, but it may not be that simple.Let me tell you sumfink. 200 is a whole heck of a lot closer to 320, than 800 is to 3200...
It says TMAX 3200 or Delta 3200 in huge print. That is what they call the film. For about 99% of people that means ISO. Even though technically they may not say ISO.
Certainly the CatLABS guy has gone silent following the latest revelations.
Well it may be that unless he is prepared to give us more information than he has already given then there is nothing more for him to say. It has been clear to me from quite early on in the thread that he is not willing to say more in terms of useful info, so that only leaves him the option of statements that are likely to renew antagonism between him and some of us or renew antagonism between us members but will not be statements that contribute to a positive fact finding discussion.
On that basis I'd say that silence may be the better option for him and us
pentaxuser
Great idea. Let it begin!
You actually shot it at an EI of 200, and that difference of terminology is actually the crux of the matter.
You have a visual style that under-exposing and push processing is suitable for.
So that is what you have done, as shown in this and many other good examples you have posted. Each of those reveal exposures with reduced shadow detail and enhanced mid-tone contrast (from push processing), which appear to be the type of results you and many others prefer.
And you choose subjects and expose them in a way that takes advantage of the film used in that way.
For what you do, using the film this way suits your needs very well.
But the EI of 200 (or the 320 in the name) is a special use of a film that appears to have a much lower native light ("ISO") sensitivity, using the sort of tests that film manufacturers and marketers normally use to help customers compare products offered.
If this film was marketed as a low-mid speed (ISO 50?), fine grain film that also offered really good results when shot at EI 200 or higher when push developed, that would have been excellent and far more honest. That would be similar to how the Ilford and Kodak "3200" badged films are designed and bdged and marketed.
If CatLabs had chosen to describe the film that way, it would have been honest, while still highlighting a particular advantage of the film. And there would have been no controversy in this thread.
I didn’t push process anything w the image of the gas pumps. Shot it at ISO 200, gave it to my lab to develop w no instructions to push etc. They just developed it in Tmax as they do all their B&W film.
Perhaps you should provide examples of those very different results? Shoot a scene at ISO 200 developed normally.. shoot the same scene at ISO 40 or 60, and develop at what you think is the appropriate rate for that ISO.
A visual comparison would be very useful.
"Reduced shadow detail" is the characteristic of this film - as is "enhanced mid-tone contrast". There is virtually no way to change that with Aviphot - it's what it was designed to do, since it's supposed to be taking photos of an inherently low-contrast scene. As such, this film deals with low-contrast very well, if given enough exposure.
you will never get a real linear curve and smooth tonality like with standard BW films. You can just make the strong S-shape a bit less strong.
After discussions with CatLabs, it has become clear that he/they were under the impression that their change in status prevented them from posting. That was a misunderstanding, but it explains their lack of activity in the thread. They can, if they wish, continue to participate.
May as well just ban CatLabs. Save them the embarrassment.
Presumably you are referring to recent days if not a week or so,Matt and not just today or the last couple of days? I seem to recall a number of "post deleted" indications against CatLABs in the last few days so presumably he or is it definitely "they" as you might use if it was Kodak or Ilford has/have realised he/they can participate in posting?
pentaxuser
May as well just ban CatLabs. Save them the embarrassment.
Wrong answer, most likely.
Would anyone have bought this film if they knew it was rebranded Agfa Aviphot 200?
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?