Huss I've examined both of your pics very carefully so where are all the problems that go with this film?
pentaxuser
No problems. it's a lovely film - just do not use a monobath developer!
Frankly this thread mystifies me. Some claiming it is an ISO 25 film??? Have they actually used it? It is perfect at ISO 100 - ya know when you actually use it to take photos.
I scratched my head on the ISO 25 part also. I haven’t used this latest GP3 film, but just before their last shutdown I was using it and I believe it was as good as this new stuff. I rated it at ISO 64 in Rodinal 1+100 semi-stand and it worked fine rated at that speed. In Xtol-R it would easily make a fine ISO 100 film. JohnWNo problems. it's a lovely film - just do not use a monobath developer!
Frankly this thread mystifies me. Some claiming it is an ISO 25 film??? Have they actually used it? It is perfect at ISO 100 - ya know when you actually use it to take photos.
I mean you can use a film at a different speed than it technically attains via testing. But it will give weird results, particularly loss of shadow detail. You’ll get response at middle tones and place your shadows well into the toe region.No problems. it's a lovely film - just do not use a monobath developer!
Frankly this thread mystifies me. Some claiming it is an ISO 25 film??? Have they actually used it? It is perfect at ISO 100 - ya know when you actually use it to take photos.
You don’t technically need any equipment other than a density reference strip. The idea here is that you want some measurable density increase (Ansel Adams used 0.1 density units of whatever they are) above the film base before you get any detail or tone variation. You run off exposures of a flat out of focus background at -4 EV plus or minus a few stops and find the one that shows some density difference on development. If your zone 1 (-4 EV relative to metered) doesn’t show any density you won’t be able to reproduce tones at that region because they will all be squashed to nothing. When I metered at ISO 100 I got almost nothing until -2 EV or zone 3, which means this film doesn’t really attain ISO 100 in Rodinal 1:25 Jobo 2500. Moreover, the positive zones were still accruing density and hadn’t reached DMax even at +7 EV.I shot my last roll last weekend at box speed and developed it in pyro-m. the real dark shodow areas could have used a bump, but I think the iso 100 is pretty close. if I get more, I'll try a run down on 1 shot, 100, 80, 64 and see what I get. not having an sensitometer I do this visually. i messed up loading the roll, so the first 2 shots have issues from loose roll paper, but thats a 220 and me thing, not a gp3 thing. its been a while since I loaded 220 film ya know. I need to scan them in today and then maybe post 1 or 2 shots.
this is a nice film, I think i could make it work for me nicely and most likely will buy more. Its nice to have a 220 option available.
john
You don’t technically need any equipment other than a density reference strip. The idea here is that you want some measurable density increase (Ansel Adams used 0.1 density units of whatever they are) above the film base before you get any detail or tone variation. You run off exposures of a flat out of focus background at -4 EV plus or minus a few stops and find the one that shows some density difference on development. If your zone 1 (-4 EV relative to metered) doesn’t show any density you won’t be able to reproduce tones at that region because they will all be squashed to nothing. When I metered at ISO 100 I got almost nothing until -2 EV or zone 3, which means this film doesn’t really attain ISO 100 in Rodinal 1:25 Jobo 2500. Moreover, the positive zones were still accruing density and hadn’t reached DMax even at +7 EV.
View attachment 298908
I've spent a lot of time "just shooting" but I figured it was worth the exercise to understand how the film is behaving in response to exposure. And it's not "endless" it's a 30 minute exercise excluding the time to develop along with your other film.Or you can take all the time and effort and just go out and take some photographs. I never saw much use of endless, continuous, redundant, useless testing when the manufacturers had done so much useful and scientific testing that we can never come close to matching. But if ones time has no value ...
Here's another perspective: in my experience Zone V exposure gives an actual density of 0.7 on the film. In the OP's curve, four stops less exposure than his 0.8 density point gives 0.09 density, close to the original definition of the ASA speed point (0.10). By this definition the actual ASA is close to 100. But the shoulder starts at Zone XII, so he has two stops of latitude and could easily use ASA 25. ASA is not an absolute number; it's a reference point.
My zone system knowledge is incomplete but I believe some films attain different speeds in different developers. I am going to pick up some other developers and try a few different ones.
Do you shoot all your film at box speed and develop it for time time indicated on the sheet that comes with the developer? Arriving at an E.I. for a film/developer combination doesn't involve "endless, continuous, useless testing".Or you can take all the time and effort and just go out and take some photographs. I never saw much use of endless, continuous, redundant, useless testing when the manufacturers had done so much useful and scientific testing that we can never come close to matching. But if ones time has no value ...
Do you shoot all your film at box speed and develop it for time time indicated on the sheet that comes with the developer? Arriving at an E.I. for a film/developer combination doesn't involve "endless, continuous, useless testing".
Or you can take all the time and effort and just go out and take some photographs. I never saw much use of endless, continuous, redundant, useless testing when the manufacturers had done so much useful and scientific testing that we can never come close to matching. But if ones time has no value ...
Then you haven't spent enough time at University!I have never encountered as many omphaloskeptics as I have on this site.
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?