Marco B
Allowing Ads
Good Evening, Marco,
Wait until you try it in 4 x 5!
Konical
I actually prefer Tmax 400, its tonality suits me better, but for max resolution and a sharp large print, you'll be hard pressed to find a film more suitable.
But then again, people make 30x40" enlargements from Delta 3200 pinhole negs...
tmx is a great all around film for available light ...
BUT if you use artificial light, tmx has the tendency to block highlights
This is what I keep reading: this or that film gives me this-or-that tonality / look. Now of course, there is some truth in that, but in my experience, the actual lighting situation plays a big part in the overall look too.
The images I printed yesterday, although taken under slightly misty conditions with a sky clearing up, did have some very dark shadows and subjects in them (wet tree trunks). They look extremely "punchy" and sharp, as per TriX look, yet with all the detail of a 100 ISO film.
I think most films can look "creamy" or "punchy" depending on the light situation, exposure, and also subsequent development...
I'm sorry, but 'blown out' is quite possible the worst words you could pick for describing highlights that are too dense in the negative.
Do you mean with "block" that the highlights blow out, e.g. to high contrast or to high max density of negative?
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?