please stop assuming.
nothing has gone wrong with fp4, nobody told me anything about foma film. pour posts (not only in this thread) are full of assumptions and it is getting kind of tiring, at least for me.
thank you.
please stop assuming.I see - so lets find your point : You like Kodak Tri x- thats Ok ! Someone told you :"It is possible to use Foma 100/200 and they are nearly in direction of Tri-x."
Next step is to ask here because there might be parallel intentions and you'll like to have recomandation for a workflow that works fine.
Is it the best method?...because the experience of others is a bit individual with that what Tri-x look is to you.
There are general characteristics of Tri-x
quite clear - nevertheless.
Your Fp4 is like night and day. Aha - that should be your first task. What has gone wrong? Because it is a good film?
Wrong developer/delution/paper ?
You should clear this first. Next step :
Try to create tonals more in direction of your "Reference" from Tri-x prints with diffetent developers. Here were some nice ideas given to you.Then you may force the grain in direction of your REFERENCE .
But you may find out the results are then much better as before but different to your nice Tri- x prints.
Therefore I wouln't so much trust your
source (who sayed Foma 100/200 could have Tri-x like look?)but have a look to different films with same box speed.
And if you want special formats wich are only avaible with Foma - why is it so bad to have other characteristics?
with regards
PS : Friends I remember well last discussion about "Retro look" total unscientific...
PPS :And somewhere in the future the result might be OK to you ?
I you like it, use it. Simple. But if you walk into Baskin Robbins and they're out of Pumpkin Caramel, don't ask them how to alter Mocha Mint to taste the same.
please stop assuming.
nothing has gone wrong with fp4, nobody told me anything about foma film. pour posts (not only in this thread) are full of assumptions and it is getting kind of tiring, at least for me.
thank you.
Just to be clear, I personally believe that some films have a distinctive look. But, such a belief is, I think, acquired through viewing numerous examples and unconsciously extracting some characteristic traits. Sure, I do not need numerous samples to tell Delta 3200 apart from PanF.can you not tell a difference in grain, microcontrast and overall feel therefore?
after all its not about being right or wrong.
Other than that, it's all too easy to self-delude oneself that one can perceive oh-so-subtle differences, aided by the knowledge of which is which. I'm unsure whether AKG is better than Sennheiser or the opposite, but I'm certain that a magic box resting near that AC wall plug cannot improve the sound of my HiFi, despite the claims of self-proclaimed experts, who don't even know what a double-blind test is.Here is one. Is this the "D76" look or the "T-Max Dev." look? OR is it the "Tri-X" look or
Just to be clear, I personally believe that some films have a distinctive look. But, such a belief is, I think, acquired through viewing numerous examples and unconsciously extracting some characteristic traits. Sure, I do not need numerous samples to tell Delta 3200 apart from PanF.can you not tell a difference in grain, microcontrast and overall feel therefore?
after all its not about being right or wrong.
Other than that, it's all too easy to self-delude oneself that one can perceive oh-so-subtle differences, aided by the knowledge of which is which. I'm unsure whether AKG is better than Sennheiser or the opposite, but I'm certain that a magic box resting near that AC wall plug cannot improve the sound of my HiFi, despite the claims of self-proclaimed experts, who don't even know what a double-blind test is.Here is one. Is this the "D76" look or the "T-Max Dev." look? OR is it the "Tri-X" look or
no tri-x in 13x18 (i am considering buying some 5x7 holders), and its rather expensive, and i got lots of foma film on stock. its just an idea.Why not use tri-x? I’m confused.
Why not use tri-x? I’m confused.
PS : You can't buy a cheap volkswagen rabbit and tune the engine so far that it is like a porsche.
no but you can buy a kharman ghia, and but big bore cylinders and a header exhaust system
in it, and turn it into a porsche 356b
I expected such kind of answer.......
Ok - so lets make a grand prix sportscar
from a city rabbit
Just to be clear, I personally believe that some films have a distinctive look. But, such a belief is, I think, acquired through viewing numerous examples and unconsciously extracting some characteristic traits. Sure, I do not need numerous samples to tell Delta 3200 apart from PanF.
Other than that, it's all too easy to self-delude oneself that one can perceive oh-so-subtle differences, aided by the knowledge of which is which. I'm unsure whether AKG is better than Sennheiser or the opposite, but I'm certain that a magic box resting near that AC wall plug cannot improve the sound of my HiFi, despite the claims of self-proclaimed experts, who don't even know what a double-blind test is.
To wrap up. IMO, you are presumably right that there are differences between, say, FP4 and TX, but the evidence you give is inadequate. To prove the difference exists, you need double-blind tests, to go further, and emulate a certain look, you need to define it in a objective and reproducible way.
what year rabbit ?
i know of someone who put a high powered engine in his 67 bug, and drag raced + beat people in 67 mustangs
if you are a mechanic and know how to drive you can do just about anything.
except with the DCV ( renault deux chevaux ) it would be hard with such a springy suspension and nuns
no tri-x in 13x18 (i am considering buying some 5x7 holders), and its rather expensive, and i got lots of foma film on stock. its just an idea.
hi. i am using trays. old tupperware in factmight as well do something with the foma, it is 4x cheaper than tri x ( at least here in the states )
by the time you figure things out tri x will go up again in priceand maybe you'll get it to look different than
tri x and different than "normalized" foma but .. the way YOU want it to look ... and in a few months
someone from italy is going to post images of yours and say:
"does anyone here on photrio have any idea how i can get my film to look like this? i think he is using FOMA ... "
===
how are you processing your sheet film ? in a jobo, or combi-plan or in yankee/FR tanks or in trays ?
hi. i am using trays. old tupperware in factmight as well do something with the foma, it is 4x cheaper than tri x ( at least here in the states )
by the time you figure things out tri x will go up again in priceand maybe you'll get it to look different than
tri x and different than "normalized" foma but .. the way YOU want it to look ... and in a few months
someone from italy is going to post images of yours and say:
"does anyone here on photrio have any idea how i can get my film to look like this? i think he is using FOMA ... "
===
how are you processing your sheet film ? in a jobo, or combi-plan or in yankee/FR tanks or in trays ?
you are right, series of experiments are in order..Got it. I would start out with a bunch of the FOMA in 35mm and as suggested above, testing testing testing. Not terribly fun work, but I suspect you could get something along the lines of what you're after given enough time & materials. Maybe Perceptol 1:1 as a start? I'd say something with a pretty good solvent level at any rate.
you are right, series of experiments are in order..
no but you can buy a kharman ghia, and but big bore cylinders and a header exhaust system
in it, and turn it into a porsche 356b
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?