Speed difference between Acros II, TMX, and Delta 100 at same CI?

[Bill Burk]

Pan F is the one with the worst latent image characteristics that I'm aware of. No need to panic, but I certainly wouldn't leave it laying around for six months before processing. Been there, done that, and regret it. One or two months shouldn't cause worry.

On the other hand, I've stumbled onto forgotten exposed sheets of TMax, Acros, and FP4 several years old, and have successfully developed them without fog or other complications.

I once considered replacing Panatomic-X with Pan F but heard so much about Pan F latent image loss that it scared me away.

Now I can see latent image loss over time, and I can adjust processing (give more time for older images) to reduce its impact.

I suppose I could test some Pan F. I still have a sealed bulk roll.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, wait too long after exposure with Pan F, and extra development won't do you a bit of good. It seems to store decently prior to development; but there's this newfangled worry thing about 120 liner paper itself causing issues if left around too long.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

I once considered replacing Panatomic-X with Pan F but heard so much about Pan F latent image loss that it scared me away.

Now I can see latent image loss over time, and I can adjust processing (give more time for older images) to reduce its impact.

I suppose I could test some Pan F. I still have a sealed bulk roll.

Hi Bill. It's a good idea to test more than one film. In the meantime could you share some of the data with us, like hold time, and CI, and EFS? I know some of this is in the curve, but it's nice to see it written out.

 

[Milpool]

I don’t think you can come to very meaningful conclusions let alone generalizations regarding latent image stability using 50 year old film.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

I don’t think you can come to very meaningful conclusions let alone generalizations regarding latent image stability using 50 year old film.

I missed that part.

 

[Bill Burk]

I don’t think you can come to very meaningful conclusions let alone generalizations regarding latent image stability using 50 year old film.

Happens with fresh film too. Maybe time for a new discussion.

 

[Lachlan Young]

psychophysical print studies

This is the key aspect that people, especially those who think they've lucked into a silver-bullet staining developer formula, persistently deny the reality of. Kodak had them outflanked long ago, and under much stricter conditions (and continued to outflank them for a very long time).

 

[Stephen Benskin]

This is the key aspect that people, especially those who think they've lucked into a silver-bullet staining developer formula, persistently deny the reality of. Kodak had them outflanked long ago, and under much stricter conditions (and continued to outflank them for a very long time).

This sounds interesting. Could you expalnd on how people see staining developers?

 

[Lachlan Young]

This sounds interesting. Do you have a moment to flesh the statement out?

They seemed to have kept on doing blind print tests for film developer formulation testing for a very long time - and you can find insights into the extent of developer formulation testing that was done in a given project if you know where to look in the academic literature.

 

[Milpool]

This is the key aspect that people, especially those who think they've lucked into a silver-bullet staining developer formula, persistently deny the reality of. Kodak had them outflanked long ago, and under much stricter conditions (and continued to outflank them for a very long time).

One of the elephants in the room is that all the work done at Kodak also made its way into emulsion design, effectively rendering the so-called art of making great negatives superfluous at best. With modern films, exposing and processing great negatives from a tone reproduction perspective is basically a trivial exercise. The photographer valuing maximum print quality should be working on printing, which is where the real control is.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

One of the elephants in the room is that all the work done at Kodak also made its way into emulsion design, effectively rendering the so-called art of making great negatives superfluous at best. With modern films, exposing and processing great negatives from a tone reproduction perspective is basically a trivial exercise. The photographer valuing maximum print quality should be working on printing, which is where the real control is.

Yup!

 

[miha]

Thanks all for sharing your experience. A sub-question: if Rodinal were the only developer you had, which of the three films would be your pick to go with it?

 

[Milpool]

Thanks all for sharing your experience. A sub-question: if Rodinal were the only developer you had, which of the three films would be your pick to go with it?

Rodinal, D-76, Microphen etc. (ie barring nonsense formulations) wouldn't/shouldn't really impact that decision from a tone reproduction perspective. From an image structure perspective all three films are fine grained but if Rodinal's higher than average graininess is a concern, TMX is the finest grained followed closely by Acros, with Delta 100 being somewhat grainier than the other two.

 

[miha]

but if Rodinal's higher than average graininess is a concern ...

Mostly speed.