Was replying to the bolded part.
@grain elevator I was simply pointing out that Juan's comment about difficulty judging film+developer properties via scans shared online is utter luddite nonsense. Yes, quality monitors and sensors far exceed the dynamic range of paper. But let's not derail the perfectly good film+developer thread into yet another scanning conversation. @MattKing will come with an aerial bombing campaign any moment now
@koraks agreed, you're making a good point, I don't see any contradictions here. And yes, looks like Helge replied without reading
Back to the original topic: judging strictly by what's posted here and elsewhere on Photrio, DF96 does not appear to be a general purpose developer like D76/ID-11/Xtol/HC because it delivers a very opinionated "look". This is great when you want this appearance, but not great if you don't. I prefer doing "creative chopping" after the scanning stage, not chemically.
But let's not derail the perfectly good film+developer thread into yet another scanning conversation. @MattKing will come with an aerial bombing campaign any moment now
There could be more!
the rule here on Photrio - no digital vs. analogue discussions!
It's a nasty rule, for all the reasons you just listed. We're using digital devices in a digital universe to discuss film photography. Everything you see is a scan, therefore everything is "hybrid". Analog purists shouldn't be on the internet. They have their own communication tools: the good old postal service. I was one of "Internet pioneers", their computers run my code, yet they insist on the "100% analog" nonsense. This behavior offends me. Don't we pay attention to the offended now?
100% Analog / Traditional ?
Mmmmmmmm...
I think Kentmere 400 (now Pan) is a very good film, and I've many times defended it here, even in Rodinal, and also in Microphen because unlike Foma and other cheap films, it can reach 1600 decently, but...
Young visitors can be led to confusion, as K400's tone is not showed here, but just a digital photograph from a K400 frame, and then a new digital tone is created, apart from the digital post edition.
Do we have any zone or subforum in Photrio where the 100% analog criteria remains respected?
By the way, Huss, of course your results would be interesting if they were wet prints scans, and now it would be cool to see some wet prints of yours from some of those frames...
I mean, to really talk about Kentmere400.
Thanks for sharing!
Kentmere is most definitely not Ilford Pan! Discussed a lot on many threads here.
It seems you did not read well...
I've used both films for more than a decade.
It seems you did not read well...
I've used both films for more than a decade.
It's a nasty rule, for all the reasons you just listed. We're using digital devices in a digital universe to discuss film photography. Everything you see is a scan, therefore everything is "hybrid". Analog purists shouldn't be on the internet. They have their own communication tools: the good old postal service. I was one of "Internet pioneers", their computers run my code, yet they insist on the "100% analog" nonsense. This behavior offends me. Don't we pay attention to the offended now?
You're confused, Paul... I talked about two films: check the ilford pan 400 film thread...
But here, what I said was, the name of the kentmere one was changed to Pan400.
Printing very large has always been a hybrid process,
That's how I read it. But the fact remains that Kentmere and Pan are two very different lines out of Ilford. Been discussed ad nauseum.
The facts are two:
Both films are named PAN400.
They're different films.
To forum members interested in Harman's Kentmere Pan400 @1600 for darkroom printing:
Today I developed a roll of KPan400 done by a friend of mine during an European trip five years ago. The roll was correctly exposed at 1600.
KPan400 is not officially recommended for EI1600, but only up to EI800.
Anyway it reaches 1600 very well IMO for wet printing.
To me it's great news this film remains so incredibly fine for several years even after such wild underexposure and after passing through many airports and then sitting for years inside a camera in a bedroom at 24C/75F.
Development was Microphen 1+1 22C, 18 minutes, no presoak, 3 inversions in the beginning and 3 inversions every third minute.
Grain is very small and sharp, and tone is great too.
Just as good as HP5+, and that's a lot to say for those of us who stay away from the digital world.
I think you should specify what you mean by "very large" though - full-wall murals, billboards, or stuff in the 3' - 6' range?
Pushing to 1600 in those lighting conditions is kind of pointless. And it’s also completely different from pushing for low light performance.
Contrast and total light flux is completely different.
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?