...I bracket half stops MORE (not bothering with less than meter), and what I find is that by the time I have tripled the starting exposure duration, I am well into serious overexposure. In general now, I tend not to bracket more than two frames past meter value: 1/2 stop more, and 1 stop more. It seems to have less reciprocity than I expected it to, but again, I have no clue what the actual reciprocity is.
I hope that is at least somewhat helpful.
A recent photo made on MZ3 with a Kodak Retina #126 with a Tessar lens. Exposure was 25 seconds at f16 under heavy clouds: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7856/33165154778_259d6ce8c6_h.jpg
Not sure why you are dealing with films like these...
Not sure why you are dealing with films like these...
Svema doesn't makes any films. Astrum, either, they could pack anything available for resale.
Why does he want to “deal with these films”? Because they are unique compared to what everyone else has to offer, is why. Did you look at the photo I linked to? That’s from a 35mm MZ3 negative taken with an 80 year old uncoated lens. This film makes 35mm almost emulate 4x5!
And I wouldn’t be so sure about Astrum not making their own films. I’ve bought Astrum Foto 100, 200 and 400 from Dmitriy directly. True, Svema doesn’t make film anymore, and that’s because they’ve been defunct since 2000, at which point Astrum acquired some of their facility and resumed manufacture of several of their films under the Astrum name. The Astrum films are surprisingly good (something to consider if you are a fan of “old school” emulsion types: Astrum Foto 200 reminds me of Plus-X) and I’m enjoying them a lot. Including shipping costs, the Astrum films cost about $3.50 per 36 exposure roll, which makes them an attractive option.
Astrum Foto 200, shot at 125 ASA, processed in Rodinal 1:50
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1820/43839925482_d6314ab4a3_k.jpg
Unique emulsion talks are somewhat important if negative is scanned. If printed under enlarger, it was proved on back then APUG to have no significant factor on the print.
So, being able to make an 11 x 14 print that shows no grain from a 35mm negative is “no significant factor”??
Of course it is not. Why someone like you is so anal about absence of grain is behind me. Film is the grain.
If I need no grain I use digital.
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?