• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Comparing films

Colin Corneau said:
I defy anyone to look at a print, or even a negative under a loupe (without seeing the film labelling up top), and tell me which is which and what developer.

Anyone.
Click to expand...

I am certain I could not, but I often look at my own prints, and I can tell what I did and didn't use. Very occasionally I can look at something else and make a good guess, usually tri-x I might add, and get it right.
 
Ted Baker said:
I am certain I could not, but I often look at my own prints, and I can tell what I did and didn't use. Very occasionally I can look at something else and make a good guess, usually tri-x I might add, and get it right.
Click to expand...

Tri-X would almost always be a good guess in the absence of any other info.
 

Maybe the most striking thing about the results in that link are the differences in the shoulder regions of the curves, which vary a lot with different films and developers. I guess some of this has been noted anecdotally before, but it was striking to see the difference plotted graphically for real data. For example, T-max 100 has a strongly upswepped curve in HC-110, but a very shouldered curve in X-tol. This difference is also present for FP4+ but not nearly as pronounced. On the other hand, the curve shape for T-max developer tends to resemble that of HC-110.

The images in the link are also very useful for reference.
 
The thing that struck me most was the performance of Delta 3200 in Atomal. Every so often people ask about good developer formulas for Delta 3200 and are mostly met with shrugs and the typical "TMAX, DD-X, Microphen & Xtol" list. If the charts and pics on this site are credible and representative, then for Delta 3200 (and apparently only for this one film) Atomal completely outclasses each and every one of these ...
 

Reminds me of something I saw on TV years ago. Someone took a £1.99 bottle of supermarket white wine and aerated it with a soda stream. The experts thought it was quality champagne.
 
alanrockwood said:
Tri-X would almost always be a good guess in the absence of any other info.
Click to expand...

What I was getting at is the inability to distinguish between a large variety of traits, does not stop you recognising one or two distinguishing traits that your are interested in or attuned to.
 
Ted Baker said:
What I was getting at is the inability to distinguish between a large variety of traits, does not stop you recognising one or two distinguishing traits that your are interested in or attuned to.
Click to expand...
Good point.
 
Yes, it does like almost "unbelievable" to me, but then I haven't tried it either. I'm pushing 70 so my memory is a little shaking, like the rest of my body, but I seem to remember just a plain "Atomal". So, what's the difference between that and Atomal 49 or ATM49? Maybe they are the same? Maybe not? Still, those results in the link are something and even if the edge sharpness is a little lower the "almost" lack of grain is mind boggling. Certainly worth a try if you were to shoot a low light even in B&W. JohnW
 
ORWO A49 or what ever is called now, was earlier version of Original Agfa Atomal. Should be very, very close match. If anybody is interesting in it I still have a few original bags of late production Agfa Atomal for sale or exchange. Back in the day I liked A49, 1:1 for medium speed films. Should use more of it back then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register