fp4+ vs delta 100 vs PLUS-X 125 vs NEOPAN 100 ACROS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht

...I attached a 6-stop example. If you look close, you'll see that the ASA 400 film (left) exposed at EI 6 (right) gives more shadow detail and shows no degradation in the highlights. Overexposure is no problem, but you may notice a slight increase in grain with 35mm film.

---

Ralph, No offense but I disagree there is "no" degradation of the highlights. Even on this monitor I can see some highlight compression. Not bad but I wouldn't make a habit of overexposing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht

RB

Try it by all means. Actually, I remember Kodak showing a sequence of up to 12 stops without any quality loss. I tried to behave myself with saying 8 stops. I don't have an 8-stop example around at the moment, but I attached a 6-stop example. If you look close, you'll see that the ASA 400 film (left) exposed at EI 6 (right) gives more shadow detail and shows no degradation in the highlights. Overexposure is no problem, but you may notice a slight increase in grain with 35mm film.

---

I have some MF negatives of Yosemite taken after a snow storm, Tri-X shoot at 400 and developed in XTOL stock solution. One of Half Dome has a range of 12 stops. How do I know? I used my Nikon F100 in the spot meter mode and a 300mm lens to take light readings. The prints I made with simple dodging and burning were very good but not great. So I took the negatives to Per Volquartz for a day long class in printing. With a lot of work I produced a stunning photograph with the clouds slightly darker than the snow next to it on Half Dome and truly great shadow detail.

Yes, I got a 12 stop range on film and I see that 14 stops is possible, but it takes work to get it to print on paper that does not have that wide a range.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirius Glass

I have some MF negatives of Yosemite taken after a snow storm, Tri-X shoot at 400 and developed in XTOL stock solution. One of Half Dome has a range of 12 stops. How do I know? I used my Nikon F100 in the spot meter mode and a 300mm lens to take light readings. The prints I made with simple dodging and burning were very good but not great. So I took the negatives to Per Volquartz for a day long class in printing. With a lot of work I produced a stunning photograph with the clouds slightly darker than the snow next to it on Half Dome and truly great shadow detail.

Yes, I got a 12 stop range on film and I see that 14 stops is possible, but it takes work to get it to print on paper that does not have that wide a range.

Steve

---

No crap - now take that Tri-X "shot at 400" that has 12 stops of range and over expose it by 8 stops. Unless your film is way different than my film it will be pretty much a solid block where most of it has shouldered off and produces no real density variations.

If I wasn't clear i was not talking about the number of EV that you could get detail on I was talking about taking a shot that gets detail for that range AND THEN overexposing by another 8 stops - true over exposure - not a great idea. Hence my comments on film overexposed by 8 stops is fine (not really)

RB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht

RB

Try it by all means. Actually, I remember Kodak showing a sequence of up to 12 stops without any quality loss. I tried to behave myself with saying 8 stops. I don't have an 8-stop example around at the moment, but I attached a 6-stop example. If you look close, you'll see that the ASA 400 film (left) exposed at EI 6 (right) gives more shadow detail and shows no degradation in the highlights. Overexposure is no problem, but you may notice a slight increase in grain with 35mm film.

---

so Ralph,

when you overexpose sooooooo much(6 stops in this case),

how do you factor development? I mean, its kind of hard to pull 6 stops in development....

-Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwboyer

No crap - now take that Tri-X "shot at 400" that has 12 stops of range and over expose it by 8 stops. Unless your film is way different than my film it will be pretty much a solid block where most of it has shouldered off and produces no real density variations.

If I wasn't clear i was not talking about the number of EV that you could get detail on I was talking about taking a shot that gets detail for that range AND THEN overexposing by another 8 stops - true over exposure - not a great idea. Hence my comments on film overexposed by 8 stops is fine (not really)

RB

---

OK, we are on the same page then. I can put 12 stops on the film, but I cannot put 12 stops and then over expose by 8 stops.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sirius Glass

OK, we are on the same page then. I can put 12 stops on the film, but I cannot put 12 stops and then over expose by 8 stops.

Steve

---

Well - that is what somebody suggested that 8 stops OVEREXPOSURE is fine.

RB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike1234

Ralph, No offense but I disagree there is "no" degradation of the highlights. Even on this monitor I can see some highlight compression. Not bad but I wouldn't make a habit of overexposing.

---

Trust me, there is no highlight compression in the actual prints. Anyway, the improvement in the shadows is significant. Even in these scans, the degration of the highlights is minor. The point was not to make a habit of it, the point was the latitude towards overexposure.

All you nay sayers are missing the point here.

The OP CAN'T adjust the exposure reliably.

I'm with Ralph, any of the listed negative films will be quite printable, even with huge over-exposures.

Would they be better close to their box speed? Probably, but so what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwboyer

No crap - now take that Tri-X "shot at 400" that has 12 stops of range and over expose it by 8 stops. Unless your film is way different than my film it will be pretty much a solid block where most of it has shouldered off and produces no real density variations.

If I wasn't clear i was not talking about the number of EV that you could get detail on I was talking about taking a shot that gets detail for that range AND THEN overexposing by another 8 stops - true over exposure - not a great idea. Hence my comments on film overexposed by 8 stops is fine (not really)

RB

---

We are talking about exposure latitude towards overexposure. The example I posted was overexposed by 6 stops, true overexposure. The example I saw at Kodak was overexposed by 12 stops, true overexposure. Eventually the highlights will roll off and ruin highlight separation, which happens sooner with some films than others, but 6-12 stops true overexposure latitude is normal.

Try FP4+ in Pyrocat (HD or MC) and compare to TMAX100 in XTOL 1:1