Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,963   Posts: 1,523,240   Online: 884
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,127
    Images
    340
    If you hate grain, why not use something like XP2?

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  2. #22
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,597
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    If you hate grain, why not use something like XP2?
    Well for one thing the OP indicated he's using 8x10 film. XP 2 isn't available in sheets.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  3. #23
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,778
    Hating grain is irrelevant if you are shooting 8x10 and contact printing. I'm not aware of any film that has grain big enough to see when un-enlarged. Even if you enlarge 8x10 you won't enlarge it very much unless you are making huge, mural sized prints, so grain is still unlikely to be a factor.

  4. #24
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,370
    Images
    1
    if i remember correctly ,i had a range from n-2 to n+2in d76 1+1 with fp4. it is a well baanced traditiobal emulsionif rated at EI64
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,539
    Quote Originally Posted by dsmccrac View Post
    Back in the day when the tabular films first came out, I was told that you only really benefit from them when they are matched with a developer designed for them, otherwise they behave like the more traditional films. Given the response in this thread has been quite, ahem, diverse, I might get a bit of a wide ranging response but I would b most interested in hearing from the tab-fans.
    Tab fan here. Don't get me wrong, FP4 is a beautiful film. As I said in my earlier post, Delta 100 and FP4 are very similar in tonality. It is also true that Delta 100 has every bit as long an exposure range as FP4 and then some. It also handles minus development very well. It will function beautifully in most any general purpose, well formulated developer. The exceptions in my testing are Pyro developers, in which I find Delta loses too much speed compared with FP4+.

    It should be noted of the big three medium speed tabulars (Delta 100, TMX, Acros), Delta is the least "tabular" and is also the grainiest of the three. The TMax films are significantly finer grained. In fact the current version of TMax 400 is about equal to Delta 100 in terms of graininess. The TMax films have gotten a bad rap in my opinion. One look at John Sexton's prints and I knew the anti-tab thing was nonsense. Everyone has their own preferences though.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,231
    Images
    9
    So much grumpiness over me hating grain. Kind of funny.

    To the folks who have gotten expansion from delta 100 what were you developing in? Where I live there is very little separation between tones and I have to rely heavily on local contrast or expanded development.

    Thanks for the info Ralph. Exactly what I was looking for.
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

  7. #27
    Harry Lime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    466
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    The TMax films have gotten a bad rap in my opinion. One look at John Sexton's prints and I knew the anti-tab thing was nonsense. Everyone has their own preferences though.
    I agree. I'm a die hard Tri-X shooter, but if there is one film that would temp me away (and did for a while) it would be TMY-2 400. It truly is a brilliant film.

    I'm not too fond of it's spectral response, but I could learn to live with that. At first I had some difficulties with the highlights, because it is not as forgiving as Tri-X, but once I adjusted my development procedure (Barry T. 2 Bath) I started to get the results I wanted.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,539
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    So much grumpiness over me hating grain. Kind of funny.

    To the folks who have gotten expansion from delta 100 what were you developing in? Where I live there is very little separation between tones and I have to rely heavily on local contrast or expanded development.

    Thanks for the info Ralph. Exactly what I was looking for.
    It will expand in virtually any general purpose developer but works very well in fairly active developers such as DDX. You'll also get virtually box speed out of it in DDX even with normal development which is nice. But you can use ID-11/D-76 etc. Some staining developers will also allow you to expand contrast more. You can also tone the negatives in selenium to increase contrast a bit further.

  9. #29
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,116
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    Good god I HATE grain. I refuse to shoot Kodak for anything to be enlarged because of it, but with an 8x10 neg contact printing I should not see the grain, or does FP4 have boulder sized grain like Tri-x?.
    Are you out of your tree?

    TMX is the most grainless pictorial (i.e. not microfiche/lith) film you can buy, bar NONE - it is smoother than the ISO50 and ISO25 emulsions you can/could buy from Efke & Ilford. And TMY2 is likewise the most grainless for its speed - it has less grain than traditional ISO100 emulsions despite easily achieving well over 400. I have a 16x20" print from 6x7 (so 7.2x enlargement) TMY2 (shot at 800!) hanging right next to me and you have to stick your nose right in it to barely make out some grain structure in perfectly-focused eyelashes, otherwise it looks perfectly smooth with NO perceptible grain when viewed at 1m. And I have unusually good vision.

    With a contact print, you ain't going to see grain even from a 3200-speed film, not that there are any in 8x10".

    I agree that 400TX is a bit grainy, but it is a traditional-style 400-speed emulsion. What did you expect, precisely? Bagging the whole Kodak product line because Tri-X performs as expected is a bit silly. HP5+ is about as grainy and Fomapan 400 is far coarser.

  10. #30
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,370
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    You can also tone the negatives in selenium to increase contrast a bit further.
    don't expect more than 1/2 a zone or muchmore than 1/2 grade from that.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin