That's an extremely misleading and condescending comment.
I shoot in the UK as well as Turkey and Greece, Surprisingly in Turkey/Greece I have no issues with highlights, shadows etc even with marble around, and that's been with Tmax100 & 400, Delta 100 & 400 and also HP5. Now the light is usually excellent in Turkey.Greece very intense sunlight but there's also so much light bouncing about that shadows aren't deep and normal exposure and development is all that's required.
Ironically it's the sunlight in the UK that's tends to be harsher and there's a greater difference between highlights and shadows particularly in the Spring, Autumn and Winter when the sun's quite low anyway and there's less overall light bouncing around so the opposite of your comment. Of course it's different on overcast days anywhere.
Peak grain is in the skies when there are not enough clouds to make them interesting (insert smiley face that means you know what I'm saying is painfully true).
I can assure you the image has very strong highlights the sun reflecting off marble, one of the benefits of Pyro developers is they are tamed, this was Delta 100 in Pyrocat HD.
Ian
Ian, is this an scan of the negative or an scan of the print?
I never had a problem when scanning and digital editing an image... but I've still have to learn a lot before I can optically print highlights like I want !
Unfortunately, it seems that it is.TMax RS is not discontued
Unfortunately, it seems that it is.
The current updated list of Kodak Alaris chemical SKU's no longer lists it: https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sit..._Chemical_CATALOG_ITEM_NUMBER_UPDATE_2019.pdf
X-Tol is on the 4th line from the top.Xtol is not in the list.
Since the lab is doing the work, I'll see how well they handle the film.
Im interested how Delta 400 will work under overcast flat lighting as well.
granularity, not a problem in 8x10" negatives , in xtol also not much seen in 6x9cm
sharpness, not a problem in 8x10" negatives
shadow scale adjust with exposure/developer
colour rendition adjust filtration
I've been wet printing, amateur, since 1985, and I've teached high school students in the basics for two years. I'm not a good photographer.
It depends on the highlights and glares you want print, the SBR and the texture you want. In glasgow you have a soft box in the sky so you don't see much the sun, then you sometimes use an HLM if you need it... so YMMV .
Have you a doubt that pyro helps to print TMax highlights on VC paper ?
Look, if you use TMax developer you get this insane sky rocketing in the highlights beyond +3, other developers do it a bit less but anyway you go high in the sky:
If a film works for you, great, but don't assume that some facile twiddling will let one film impersonate another - manufacturers ran entire research teams to see what the competition were up to - and if they could have produced a filter that did what you claim, they would have! A Wratten filter is unlikely to do what your assumptions and hypotheses presume - and even hugely expensive custom filters will only cut colour transmission at specified points. If you really wanted to use TMax, you would have learned how to afford it.
+1Without problems, in my experience.
Yes exactly. Skies, with no variation in tone, even though “RMS” granularity is below peak, can appear to be grainy... but as your graph shows the most apparent grain is in low-mid tones. That’s what the picture of my daughter shows, I tried to put the whole picture in the tones that would show grain at its most apparent. And I think the demonstration confirmed what the book told me.Bill, of course perceived grain depends mainly on local microcontrast, there is lilttle to debate about that, I guess. Microcontrast hides grain to human eye.
But the grain perception is also related to density, we have Diffuse Granularity graphs depending on exposure and correlating to density:
This is for color, but similar for BW:
View attachment 237477
Yes exactly. Skies, with no variation in tone, even though “RMS” granularity is below peak, can appear to be grainy... but as your graph shows the most apparent grain is in low-mid tones. That’s what the picture of my daughter shows, I tried to put the whole picture in the tones that would show grain at its most apparent. And I think the demonstration confirmed what the book told me.
I also think that grain is a powerful aesthetic resource.
the thing is that when people use tab grain films they are doing their best to abandon grain and go for smooth, cause grainless/smooth is their aesthetic choice.
the thing is that when people use tab grain films they are doing their best to abandon grain and go for smooth, cause grainless/smooth is their aesthetic choice.
One thing I do after a film sensitomeric calibration is inspect the patches with a high x magnifier, to figure grain structure at each density.
i knowWhich is a pity because Delta 100 can deliver quite beautiful & extremely sharp grain.
Of course, some people hate grain, of simply it's not suitable for his depiction. And in LF grain is a least concern
But obviously we have there an strong aesthetic subculture about grain, many masters have worked with this resource to empower his message !
I guess that mastering grain usage is like diving in a deep ocean, we always can go deeper. There are many nuances... we have grain interaction with tonality, with focus, with bokeh kind, with microcontrast, with format, with processing, with subject...
Of course not always we have to control grain, sometimes it simply makes the job.
Personally, I like a lot TX400 in MF, which I use with smooth bokeh RB67 lenses, I like how the OOF shows more grain from the lower microcontrast, helping to separate subject from backgorund.
I take the same chips and tape them to the spotmeter.Bill, this is an excellent precedure for integral process calibration.
Let me ask, in practice...
How do you correlate the spot meter reading to the exposure on film ?
Directly assuming the meter is aiming Z-V at calibrated speed ?
Or you make the optical calculation ?
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?