- Joined
- Oct 26, 2012
- Messages
- 61
- Format
- Medium Format
I was pleasantly surprised by TMax 400 at 800. Yes it was a dull overcast day so shadows weren't really a problem but frankly I couldn't see any loss at 800 and it is interesting that Kodak suggests the same dev time. It is almost as if TMax 400 is really a 800 film
While there is some loss of shadow detail at 3200 I'd say that in the right nightime shot where you'd expect shadows to be almost detail-less, 3200 is perfectly possible.
TMax 400 is a jewel in the crown of Kodak's range and if Alaris has any sense it will ensure that it continues to be made.
pentaxuser
Strange, but from what I read here (at APUG), Tri-X 400 seems to be held in higher esteem than TMax. I never understood that because I thought TMax was supposed to be the higher performing film.
Strange, but from what I read here (at APUG), Tri-X 400 seems to be held in higher esteem than TMax. I never understood that because I thought TMax was supposed to be the higher performing film.
. On a high dynamic range scene it is preferable to underexpose by one stop (or there abouts) and then use a compensating developer to bring back the shadows.
I now post the other part of the test roll, from EI50 to EI400.
Again, recall exposure was metered the center car.
EI50 is pretty much useless for my scanner, despite the negative looking much better.
There is even quite a difference between EI200 and EI400 shots. Compensating development does not work when overexposing.
The outdoor part of the image looks fine but the indoor part is under exposed. I don't think that is a very good test. You can rate your film however you want, but your negative exposure is determined by how you meter.
The logic of your test is like this example from another forum: "When I shoot a building in the sun I rate Tri-X at 25,600! I point my spot meter in the window of the building. I find an object in there and I set that on Zone V. For example I might get an exposure of 1/500th at f16 and pictures always come out fine, so I have been using Tri-X at 25,600 all the time now."
Someone should finally do an actual test of Rodinal stand and plot the results with a given film to see what it is actually doing. Suppose it offers no sensitometric advantage compared with other straight forward procedures, or worse, maybe you get less speed relative to contrast?
When you look at the shadow area beneath the car to the front on the right, in the first set the EI 400 shot has less detail in that area than at EI800 shot. Strange. In the second set, the shadows in this area get brighter and brighter from EI50 to EI400, which is the brightest in this area, although it should really just be the other way round. Even stranger. This somehow doesn't make sense. You mixed up the shots or something is flawed in your test set up or workflow. Or maybe I don't understand the magic of stand development
I think the problem here might also be that a scanner is used, and there is no reference, like a step wedge.
OP, would you be willing to lay out all of the negatives on a lightbox and take a picture of that image so that we can all see the difference in the density of the negatives before you made your adjustments? Or make a contact print of them all together?
I will post the original scans when I have the time.
Here I post the link to the original scan:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90448738@N05/11967421625/sizes/o/in/photostream/
The three strips were scanned simultaneously.
I later rescanned the strips using an iPad to backlit the negatives. Because I am not absolutely sure whether the light intensity was identical in all scans, I am not posting these.
The exposure at each frame is:
4: EI50 1/60 2.8
5: EI100 1/125 2.8
6: EI200 1/250 2.8
7: EI400 1/500 2.8
8: EI400 1/125 5.6
9: EI800 1/250 5.6
10: EI1600 1/500 5.6
11: EI1600 1/125 11
12: EI3200 1/250 11
Yes, I was slightly dumb that day and only realized I add duplicated some exposure latter.
I is also possible to note that exposure which are supposed to be equivalent are not perfectly identical. This probably has to do with calibration of shutter speeds. Frame 11 looks slightly thinner than 10. The same goes for frame 7 and 8.
Feel free to manipulate the file as you wish, and post your own results.
I have a 16 bits uncompressed file on request.
Have fun.
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?