I think you may have misunderstood my point. I know the difference between XP2 and TMax but I was making the point that people that think the grain free look is like "the digital look" (regardless of chromogenic C41 or B&W)
XP2 is the black and white version of chromogenic C41 film, and has about as much look in common to Tmax film as a walrus does to Miss America.
Thank you Drew! I remembered something like it from some other thread on here. And those few times I used Pan F 50, it seemed to fare better when exposed for EI 25, especially in the shadow area.Hi M88. I personally rate Pan F at 25. But anything distinctly below 100 is not generally classified as "medium speed".
Very true. Their 400 film isn't 400, their 100 film could do better at EI 50... Seems like only their ISO200 film is truly 200. Then again, all of those are substantially cheaper than anything else on the market, so under the right circumstances, they can get the job done. Not as well as Tmx or Delta 100, but still. I have some nice prints from Foma 400.how Foma computes their box speeds seems to live in a little make-believe world of its own.
I don't take Foma's specs with just a grain of salt, but with a full carton of salt. You might want to try it at 50 instead of 100. But TMax is a true 100 speed film in most developers.
Thank you Drew! I remembered something like it from some other thread on here. And those few times I used Pan F 50, it seemed to fare better when exposed for EI 25, especially in the shadow area.
Very true. Their 400 film isn't 400, their 100 film could do better at EI 50... Seems like only their ISO200 film is truly 200. Then again, all of those are substantially cheaper than anything else on the market, so under the right circumstances, they can get the job done. Not as well as Tmx or Delta 100, but still. I have some nice prints from Foma 400.
Well, Kentmere 100/400 IS cheaper that either Fomapan or Arista EDU 100/400. Definitely a different look than Foma (probably more contrasty) but I had been able to get full speed with most developers.
Marcelo
I used Kentmere films extensively. What I really didn't like about K100 is its poor responsiveness to red filter and apparent lack of anti-halation layer. So I finally moved on to FP4+. It's pointless to skimp on film/paper/chemicals when I use so little anyway.
I used Kentmere films extensively. What I really didn't like about K100 is its poor responsiveness to red filter and apparent lack of anti-halation layer. So I finally moved on to FP4+. It's pointless to skimp on film/paper/chemicals when I use so little anyway.
I used Kentmere films extensively. What I really didn't like about K100 is its poor responsiveness to red filter and apparent lack of anti-halation layer. So I finally moved on to FP4+. It's pointless to skimp on film/paper/chemicals when I use so little anyway.
Pentaxuser - You stated it correctly. It's Greg's method, not necessarily your's or mine.
Well, it is, if you use 120 film like me. Kentmere or Arista are about $6.00 while TMax 100 is at least $10.00. We are talking about $1.25 (Tmax100) vs $0.75 for Arista/Kentmere since I use 6x9 a lot.
Hi Pentaxuser. My method is entirely logistical or practical. I regard any realistic film speed in relation to what is necessary to begin resolving steps of shadow value, or lifting them up off the toe threshold enough, to equate to reasonably discernable gradation in the print itself, or something equivalent in a densitometer reading. Some people call that personal ASA, some talk Zone System jargon, whatever. But it has to work. I encounter a lot of high contrast situations. I need to know at exactly what point the film reasonably launches off the toe, and at what point it begins shouldering of at the top. This is all specific developer dependent, of course.
This past week I've been doing my first shots with Acros II 120 film. I already knew it had a slightly steeper toe than the original version, which I always shot at 50. Today the contrast was generally moderate due to an amount of coastal fog, so I'm confident I bagged full tonality even shooting it at box speed 100. But on that same roll I have a couple shots made in relatively high contrast settings, which I also shot at 100 just to see how they will turn out. When I get up to high altitude usage, then it will be critical to know the real-world parameters. I've done lots and lots of Acros 4X5 shooting at high altitude, but it's always been at 50. The ONLY med speed film I trust at box speed under those conditions is TMX100. So this is an appropriate time to fiddle around with the new Acros II and see just how much it differs from original Acros, and if it comes closer to the long scale of TMax than its previous version. It is also slightly less blue sensitive, another improvement in landscape applications.
Yes, that exactly. In the film days I wanted grain to be as invisible as possible, but now that we can get that so easily with digital, I prefer the grittier look of traditional-grain films.I think what people mean is that the film image looks too sharp (Tmax 100/Delta 100) and the grain is very, very fine.
Hi Pentaxuser. My method is entirely logistical or practical. I regard any realistic film speed in relation to what is necessary to begin resolving steps of shadow value, or lifting them up off the toe threshold enough, to equate to reasonably discernable gradation in the print itself, or something equivalent in a densitometer reading. Some people call that personal ASA, some talk Zone System jargon, whatever.
You need to substantiate those claims.
He doesn't, actually. This is an informal discussion, not a juried scientific panel. He can state his experience without any justification and you can dismiss it as you wish.
Informal discussion means informal discussion!
Yes. Full 100 speed. But remember, I prioritize my metering on shadow values in high contrast situations, using a spot meter; then I compare the high values. I'm actually visualizing in my mind the shape of the characteristic curve. It's a film I'm very familiar with.
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?