Effect of Dmax, Delta 100 have 4.5 , TriX have 3.5

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

How Dmax analysis results effects the final photograph.

I was a Crossfield 656 Drum Scanner operator and highest black was coming from Leica IIIC with Elmar 50mm and it was 3.5 , film was Kodak EPP. I scanned 8x10 US Ford Slides to anything and this was the highest in 4 years , year 1994-98.

Was it the thing called DMax ?

I visited DR5 and it says Delta have 4.5 , I remember Photo Engineer told about cine film copying film and was Dmax was 4.

Can someone shed a light on Delta 100 films and I am very excited.

Umut

[markbarendt]

High D-Max caused by extra camera exposure will make printing times long.

High D-Max caused by extra development steepens the characteristic curve which changes the relationship to the paper, a shorter range will straight print. Think Zone system "+" development or pushing.

[polyglot]

Why would you be very excited about Dmax for a negative? It's only really relevant for a display material, i.e. if you're using (as per DR5) the material for reversal.

Otherwise, 3.5 is plenty of range and represents a lot more than what you can fit onto a print.

And quit it with the Leicaphilia. Seriously, you know the camera doesn't affect the density of the negs, it's entirely down to exposure and processing.

[Athiril]

Those are only the dMax numbers for the dr5 process.

[Michael R 1974]

Umut: D-max for a negative film is simply the maximum density (opacity) the developed metallic silver is capable of producing. A higher density means less light is transmitted. For papers it is the same thing (ie density of deposited silver) but is defined by reflection density since the print is viewed by reflected rather than transmitted light. So for negatives and transparencies, d-max results in the least amount of light transmission. For prints, d-max results in the least amount of light reflection ("maximum black").

[Photo Engineer]

Are you talking about the Dmax of negative or positive images?

Are you accounting for the contrast and latitude if these are negatives?

If they are positives, are they direct positives achieved by a reversal process, or are they made by a neg-pos printing process?

These questions are critical in the answer to the OP.

And then, are these figures from a densitometer or from a scanned image? If so, then nothing can be said!

PE

[Rudeofus]

Seriously, you know the camera doesn't affect the density of the negs, it's entirely down to exposure and processing.

When you have reversal material, the quality of the glass does impact the D_max. More flare means lower D_max. With negative material it would be D_min that's affected.

[markbarendt]

When you have reversal material, the quality of the glass does impact the D_max. More flare means lower D_max. With negative material it would be D_min that's affected.

Actually flare does not change the D-max or D-min of the film or paper, those are determined physically/chemically.

Flare does though change the qualities/usability of the image within that range.

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I am not expert. Lets talk about negative films and D76 development and scanning on a desktop scanner for APUG galleries.
I have a Zeiss Ikon Nettar and I can buy Tri X or Delta 100. Film will be 120 class.

I used Tri X, Plus X and Agfa Films past 20 years and with LTM.

Do Delta 100 have a advantage over other films ? I have extremelly tight budget now and I buy 2 rolls in 3 months.

Umut

[ic-racer]

I am not expert. Lets talk about negative films and D76 development and scanning on a desktop scanner for APUG galleries.

I am not an expert on the galleries, but aren't the scans in APUG galleries supposed to be scans of analog prints?