DREW WILEY
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 15,018
- Format
- 8x10 Format
No. I shoot TMY400 at ASA 400, and TMZ 3200 as well as Delta 3200 at 800.
Thanks. That clarifies matters. I should have noted that you had mentioned TMZ as the comparison with D3200 . Just to be clear about the nomenclature, TMZ 3200 is the same as Tmax P3200? So how does TMZ 3200 at 800 compare with D3200 at 800 in 135 on a compare and contrast basis?No. I shoot TMY400 at ASA 400, and TMZ 3200 as well as Delta 3200 at 800.
Did you mean highlights? That's where their characteristic curves differ most.I assume TMZ will be distinctly more contrasty than D3200, esp in the shadows.
It will have distinctly more contrast in the shadows too if you giver it more exposure than the "wishful thinking" box speed. As far as "better" or "worse" grain, that is a matter of personal taste. For some people, the whole point of shooting a high-speed small format film is to obtain conspicuous grain.
Especially true of high speed outdoor shots in overcast light such as Isle of Man TT motorcycle racing, football (soccer) matches or more prosaically indoor shots of kids' birthday parties without distracting flash. I would use P3200 or D3200 when the conditions call for it and certainly not to get grainy pictures.Mine would be to get the photograph with available light. Silly me.
Thanks, Drew I can understand the more contrasty comment in respect of P3200 v D3200, now I have seen the two films' curves. I think your reference to the grain structure being more distinct refers to P3200. If so I was kind of hoping that in return for the disadvantages in certain situations for more contrast you might have been able to give confirmation that in 135 P3200 had less grain but there were are. I have seen the odd comment about P3200 being less grainy but not enough of such comments to make me trust that it is a generally recognised benefit of P3200 v D3200.
The new P3200 may be different from the old. We are yet to find out, as you say, but somehow I doubt it.
pentaxuser
I suspect that your above statement, Drew, aptly sums things up. ThanksYou're going to get grain regardless, so it's just a question of what kind of grain you like or dislike, and what kind of developer delivers the look you prefer.
I wonder if the more generic direct answer to the question might be that as a general rule, higher speed emulsions are lower contrast, inherently, than low speed ones, which allows them to be stretched through development. Further, I'm going to guess that the most important limitation for speed is not so much anything else beyond how low will the customers go in quality (grain, sharpness) to gain speed.
High speed films, at least conventional ones, have a greater variance in grain size. This creates both a greater latitude and lower contrast. Low speed films are more contrasty.
Maybe you could help explain... I always hear about film being more contrasty than another low contrast film. In the case of Ortho Litho film developed in litho developers sure, high contrast is part of the ideal.High speed films, at least conventional ones, have a greater variance in grain size. This creates both a greater latitude and lower contrast. Low speed films are more contrasty.
Though you would probably refer to it as normal and the other one high contrast.Develop two films to the same gamma for example. Which resultant characteristic curve can accommodate a wider exposure range? That's the one we'd typically refer to as the lower contrast film.
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?