Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,287   Posts: 1,535,318   Online: 874
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50
  1. #11
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,203
    Images
    46
    brucemuir,

    Nice example!

    snegron,

    If you want clear/sharp landscapes you may want to step down to a 100 speed film.

  2. #12
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,265
    Images
    4
    Oh yea it's pretty smooth.
    That's 645 also so if you get 6x7 you'll do better yet.
    It's not unseeable like TMX can be but it's pretty dang clean.

    My favorite was Neopan400 but alas…
    that stuff gave you box speed no prob and just the right spot between a Tgrain and traditional grain.

  3. #13
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,265
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    brucemuir,

    Nice example!

    snegron,

    If you want clear/sharp landscapes you may want to step down to a 100 speed film.
    Thanks Bill and yea you're right.
    TMX or better yet try some Fuji Acros 100
    That stuff was really cheap also until recently. Still reasonable though.

  4. #14
    snegron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Hot, Muggy, Florida
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    If you really liked Tri-X 35mm and just wished for less grain... then stepping up to 120 will give you less grain on the same film.

    I have grown fond of certain TMAX-400 characteristics. I like the fine grain, sharpness and the fact I don't really need a yellow filter to get detail in the skies. There's a different reciprocity failure curve too.

    None of this is earth-shattering. But those are differences that you might expect to see when you change film.

    If you just move to 120 size then everything you remember still holds true.


    Thanks Bill! I was wondering the exact thing you mentioned; if going from 35 to 120 would appear to have less grain due to being a larger format. My biggest issue with 35mm Tri-X was the higher contrast/less tonality in mid to lower tones. I'm hoping to increase IQ with a lower grain film.

  5. #15
    snegron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Hot, Muggy, Florida
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by brucemuir View Post
    Oh yea it's pretty smooth.
    That's 645 also so if you get 6x7 you'll do better yet.
    It's not unseeable like TMX can be but it's pretty dang clean.

    My favorite was Neopan400 but alas…
    that stuff gave you box speed no prob and just the right spot between a Tgrain and traditional grain.
    Unfortunately the 90mm lens on my Mamiya is only a "C", so I would have to mess around with filters if I wanted to get a bit punchier images. I have better glass on my 645, but the drawback is the smaller image size...

  6. #16
    snegron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Hot, Muggy, Florida
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    brucemuir,

    Nice example!

    snegron,

    If you want clear/sharp landscapes you may want to step down to a 100 speed film.

    100 would be the best option, but I'm hoping to go handheld. I'm contemplating ISO 200 though...

  7. #17
    snegron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Hot, Muggy, Florida
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by tkamiya View Post
    How long ago was it that you used Tri-X in 35mm? I recall in 80s when I used Tri-X, there was a quite visible level of grain. But, when I use it today, and I do it regularly, I don't find the grain objectionable even when I enlarge it to 11x14 with small amount of cropping. If you must stick with ISO 400, I find Tmax 400 to be as grainless as it can get for ISO 400 film.

    But, if it was quite a while ago you used Tri-X, I recommend you'd try again because the formulation has changed. It's quite nice.
    Last time I used Tri-X I think was back in 1987. From 1983 to 1987 I was shooting several rolls a day and doing my own developing/printing for press work. I still have a few developed negatives from back then; they look grainy compared to what I do now in PS!

  8. #18
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,265
    Images
    4
    TriX has been tweeked since the late 80's but even so you wont get the antiseptic grainless look that converted digi files deliver.

    You could try dialing in your development times for that 90 if you feel its a bit low contrast but the nice thing about those earlier lenses is they can give better shadows sometimes.

    RB lenses are so cheap you could pick up a more modern lens for not too much I'm sure. I bet you have something your not even using you could sell if you really feel you need a punchier lens.
    Those 6x7 negs are worth getting no matter how you do it and I've never really been disappointed with any mamiya glass I've had in a few formats.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,251
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by snegron View Post
    100 would be the best option, but I'm hoping to go handheld. I'm contemplating ISO 200 though...
    I don't know who first said "the sharpest lens in your bag is your tripod", but they were right. IMHO, if you're trying for "as close to AA as possible on rollfilm", the tripod is more crucial than choice of film.

    That said, though I'm not a T-grain fan myself, I think TMY seems like your best bet if you really need something that will work handheld while allowing you to stop down for appropriate depth of field. The difference in apparent grain between 35mm and 120 is there, of course, but less so in 645, and it sounds like you might still find Tri-X (or HP5) too grainy for your purposes. (Probably Fomapan 400 too; if anything it's a bit grainier.)

    But basically, high speed and small grain are natural enemies, and you aren't going to really be able to optimize for both at once. You might find that TMY is a good compromise, with perhaps FP4 or TMX as a slower film for tripod use and bright conditions.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,798
    Tri-X and T-max are my two choices.

    Jeff

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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