Although I'd rather see Delta 400 in sheets again. They have the conventional films covered with HP5, but Ilford doesn't have a tabular film in 400. I'd rather buy a 400 sheet film at the Delta price point than TMY.
I have gone back to my files and dug up an Ultrafine Extreme 100 negative in 120 size. I checked the B+F density, and it is 0.28 (developed in D--76), so it looks like it is a very similar base to that of the Kentmere 100. I suppose there was some consensus at the time that Ultrafine Extreme was Kentmere, or at least similar to it.
....maybe.....i still don't get the obscure connection to foxholes.....
It is where one might shelter when the fireworks (Photrio argument about Kodak) commence.
I have a couple of curves that simulate capturing the "normal" subject luminance range of about 7.3 stops (or LSLR = 2.2) for people who are interested in photographing such scenes. These are hypothetical curves based on the curve families for Kentmere 100 and Kentmere 400, respectively. The parameters of interest are listed in the left upper corner of each plot. Flare-corrected CI is listed as "Aim CI."
View attachment 324277View attachment 324278
Aparat....for those of us who can read negatives & print...you know...practical application...but don't do graphs.... can you offer an interpretive meaning in a few sentences.
What purpose will these new films serve if there are no medium-format cameras being currently produced? My Mamiya is getting very old and to replace it I see no alternative but another very old Mamiya...
I printed one of my Kentmere 100 negatives the other day, and it printed surprisingly easily on a grade 2 paper. (Beseler 23C II with a condenser head)My usual disclaimer is that those are the results that I found using my testing conditions. The results are meant to be only starting points for further personal testing of the materials.
These "normal" curves are meant to represent a "normal" scene where the difference between shadows and highlights that one wants to capture is about seven stops. In such a situation, I would look up the Effective Film Speed (EFS, similar to Exposure Index) value (for Kentmere 100 it is around ISO 80, for 400 it is ISO 320), use an incident meter or measure off a grey card (or whichever surface one wants to measure off), and take a picture. Then, I would develop for 4:75 minutes (K 100) and 7:30 min (K 400) in D-76 stock at 20C in a rotary processor. That would result in a negative that should be fairly easy to print using a diffusion enlarger. If I was using a flare-prone lens, I would probably increase development time a little to compensate for the loss of shadow contrast. Here are two plots that summarize the relationship between Contrast Index (CI) and developing time for each film. I find that these plots are very useful and do not require any further abstraction (like the Zone System) to to interpret.
As a simple summary, the curves he presents where there are multiple developing times show the exposure ( amount of light) the film received on the bottom and the corresponding density built on the negative on the vertical axis. A straight line means that there is a direct correlation between exposure given and resulting density of the film. Suppose you increase the exposure from one point to another by a stop, in the straight line portion the resultant change in the negative will also be one stop (if it is a 1:1 relationship - the important thing is it's a constant relationship). If the curve is more of an S curve, then there isn't that direct relationship anymore, so a stop more exposure might only increase the negative density by 1/2 a stop - you'd have to know exactly where on the curve you are to know the relationship. Depending on where you are on the curve, it can result in highlight tones being compressed together for example, or poor separation in the shadow tones. So if you see a long straight line portion of the graphs, it should be an easy film to work with for most circumstances. It will be a predictable film.Aparat....for those of us who can read negatives & print...you know...practical application...but don't do graphs.... can you offer an interpretive meaning in a few sentences.
That photo has great tones doesn't it?Personally I get the picturefrom the photo in Paul's post in #106.....& later where he said his negatives printed well on grade 2.
That photo has great tones doesn't it?
I should have spent a bit more time writing my response, but, fortunately, @Craig explained it perfectly. What you describe is a very effective, practical way of perfecting one's exposure and development. The "expose, develop, tweak" method has worked for thousands and thousands of photographers over the years and continues to be an excellent method of getting to the ultimate destination, i.e., the fine print (or electronic image).Craig, Thanks for the interpretation..... pretty much what i've always done without reading charts. I've always preferred the practical approach. Expose, develop, print..... tweak when/where necessary. That's why in the long run I've used the same few films and the same developer.
That doesn't mean that i didn't read Ansel's The Camera, The Negative, The Print.....or other tomes.....
Personally I get the picturefrom the photo in Paul's post in #106.....& later where he said his negatives printed well on grade 2.
obscure connection to foxholes.....
I always thought that the word and meaning of " foxhole" was part of U.S. parlance. I am sure I have heard it much more often in Hollywood war films that in comparable U.K. produced films
pentaxuser
I always thought that the word and meaning of " foxhole" was part of U.S. parlance. I am sure I have heard it much more often in Hollywood war films that in comparable U.K. produced films
pentaxuser
hiding in the ground from artilery and machine gun fire was much preferable to marching INTO it.
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?