I remember Mirko saying that if you want to support a photo manufacturer, buy paper from them. Paper sales are what keep the factory doors open. I hope Adox will be able to ramp up its paper offerings.
"As in the Scheiner system, speeds were expressed in 'degrees'. Originally the sensitivity was written as a fraction with 'tenths' (for example "18/10° DIN"), where the resultant value 1.8 represented the relative base 10 logarithm of the speed. 'Tenths' were later abandoned with DIN 4512:1957-11, and the example above would be written as "18° DIN". The degree symbol was finally dropped with DIN 4512:1961-10. This revision also saw significant changes in the definition of film speeds in order to accommodate then-recent changes in the American ASA PH2.5-1960 standard, so that film speeds of black-and-white negative film effectively would become doubled, that is, a film previously marked as "18° DIN" would now be labeled as "21 DIN" without emulsion changes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speedAnd was I surprised to figure that out when I first tried PL100M. Most every film I've ever tested on a densitometer, shows an actual usable EI of about 1/2 box ASA speed (except when processed with standing techniques, which is a whole other discussion).
I was therefore interested to measure the PL100M at a usable EI of 100 ... only to discover that it's daylight speed was - as you say - actually rated at ASA 200.
"As in the Scheiner system, speeds were expressed in 'degrees'. Originally the sensitivity was written as a fraction with 'tenths' (for example "18/10° DIN"), where the resultant value 1.8 represented the relative base 10 logarithm of the speed. 'Tenths' were later abandoned with DIN 4512:1957-11, and the example above would be written as "18° DIN". The degree symbol was finally dropped with DIN 4512:1961-10. This revision also saw significant changes in the definition of film speeds in order to accommodate then-recent changes in the American ASA PH2.5-1960 standard, so that film speeds of black-and-white negative film effectively would become doubled, that is, a film previously marked as "18° DIN" would now be labeled as "21 DIN" without emulsion changes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed
I believe that this may have been the cause for this, that Adox decided not to rename their popular films.
That's quite possible. I do know that film speeds magically doubled at some point around that time. For most shooters, that Tungsten rating is actually a good approximation of the real daylight speed when Efke is processed conventionally. I find no film that will hit a useable EI at box speed unless I used extended, dilute development.
That's quite possible. I do know that film speeds magically doubled at some point around that time. For most shooters, that Tungsten rating is actually a good approximation of the real daylight speed when Efke is processed conventionally. I find no film that will hit a useable EI at box speed unless I used extended, dilute development.
At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that you are using Zone System speed criteria here. I and many others achieve higher quality prints if we work with the higher, industry standard (for more than 6 decades) ASA/ISO speed criteria.
It might be time for Adox to consider a subscription service to crowdfund a run of their materials.
And - at the risk of repeating myself- can you show me an image where you metered using box ASA as your EI, and placed the shadows appropriately thereafter?
I remember Mirko saying that if you want to support a photo manufacturer, buy paper from them. Paper sales are what keep the factory doors open. I hope Adox will be able to ramp up its paper offerings.
This one would be a good example of the sort of rendition I aim toward, and is more my type of image than what I sense you prefer, based on the images you seem to post here.
View attachment 348773
Here is a couple that I think are closer to your preferences:
View attachment 348774
View attachment 348775
FWIW, The last one is a scan from a print, while the first two are negative scans adjusted to be similar to the corresponding darkroom prints.
I rarely use a spot meter, and have a preference for incident light metering.
This one was definitely done with an incident meter:
View attachment 348776
FWIW, on my recently calibrated lap top screen, your deep shadows also have gone almost completely black. Internet sharing of this sort of stuff is a challenge.
My shovel picture was one where I chose to put some of the shadows into black, but the others show more detail in the shadows.
What is more important in almost every print is how the mid-tones and highlights render. That is where most of the "quality" in a good print resides.
Again, neglecting aesthetics, note that the deep shadows have held a bit of detail.
The highlights in that scan, however, are totally blown out. Since it's negative film, I trust something is there alright, but on the digital side of things, something is surely awry pretty badly in that image.
I see what you mean. Also sorry for barging in on it, and your point was of course about the opposite end of the tonal scale.
My approximately calibrated screen also show "almost" black but there is detail there that is absent in your images. Again, I'm not being critical of the work, merely pointing out that you're losing detail that could be there.
The detail is there in my negatives, and on my prints. Just as I'm sure it is with yours.
The internet representation of the shadows on both of our uploaded images is very similar on my screens, and I'm sure most people's screens - you just can't reach reliable conclusions on subtle differences based on what survives the vagaries of individual displays and the Photrio downloader.
I've no doubt that what you do satisfies your wants and needs. But your methods and preferences do not throw into doubt for everyone else the long accepted and reliable standards that the photographic industry has been using for more than half a century.
I have a feeling you would either get along well or be at loggerheads with Bruce Barnbaum.
I actually have a problem with stupid Kodak naming:
TRI-X or T-MAX - for the love of god I can never recall which one of these is a T grain film - all of them have T's and X's in their name, legit confusing to me.
Bad.
I actually have a problem with stupid Kodak naming:
TRI-X or T-MAX - for the love of god I can never recall which one of these is a T grain film - all of them have T's and X's in their name, legit confusing to me.
Bad.
T Max is for the T grain emulsion.
The Kodak naming using X's dates from before world war 2. In that X meant the speed. Thus Panatomic X was the slowest (one X), Super XX was twice as fast (2 X's), and Tri X ( 3 X's) was triple the speed of Panatomic X. Yes, I know that don't quite work out, and Pan X might not have been the "originator" or the series, but you get the idea.
Most every film I've ever tested on a densitometer, shows an actual usable EI of about 1/2 box ASA speed
Sometimes old films cannot be resurrected because the materials are unavailable or prohibited. Panatomic X & cadmium.
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?