Thanks for the hint, now it's possible to look at it in detail.
On the Flickr image you can really see that a scan from a 6x7cm negative of that film causes a lot of grain for 6x7cm. If I scan such a big negative using FP4 I get practically no grain at that size, with Tmax 100 literally no grain at all. It looks like an average scan from an average 35mm negative. I can do better with Tri-X in 35mm.
Now, where is the progress when a 6x7 cm negative causes as much grain as a 35mm negative? "Tonality"? It's not different than with any other b/w film, and on the branches you can easily see that the images was sharpened.
Or is this simply a way of trying to plant surreptitious advertising on APUG - and that it turns into a barrel burst?
The future belongs to the few of us still willing to get our hands smell like fixing bath.
There's definitely some Maco axe grinding going on here. Anyways people who use APX aren't using it for it's grain. They're using it for it's unique tonality and response. Who cares about the grain when the "look" is already so good.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
Look at the garnularity in the sky. It's either overdeveloped or the film is grainy. I used quite a bit of APX 100, still have some 135 in stock, and a few rolls of PO100c. Graininess is worse and sharpness lower with PO100c and tonality as well as response to filters is very different due to the different spectral sensitivity. PO has next to no red-sensitivity and lacks APX's enhanced sensitivity in the green part of the spectrum which was one of its key feature when using it for landscapes.
Trying to tell customers that anything in the line of PO100c is a suitable substitute for APX100 must be either ignorance or insolance. But I'm rather sure that otoh we will be told in due time that all this is just nitpicking and it sells like hot cake. Oh, well...
Last edited by skahde; 05-28-2010 at 01:08 PM. Click to view previous post history.