Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,316   Posts: 1,536,724   Online: 998
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36
  1. #21
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,537
    Both german enterprises involved into researching tonal renderimgh with high-resolution films have hinted at problems with larger formats than 35mm. The cause of that as well their remedies were not unveiled.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,591
    The only very fine-grained film I've ever discovered that had long exp range (a long relative straight line
    to the characteristic cuve, reminiscent of some faster films) was Efke 25 (now discontinued). It worked
    wonderfully in ordinary developers including my preferred pyro options. By contrast, micro-films like
    Tech Pan needed special developers, were always disappointing in the shadows and highlights, and had
    poor edge effect, so actually looked less sharp in a typical print. Pan F works nice is your lighting isn't
    especially harsh.

  3. #23
    ath
    ath is offline
    ath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    890
    My understanding is that CMS 20 II is from a different batch than the original CMS 20 and thus Adotech was tweaked and renamed Adotech II.
    Regards,
    Andreas

  4. #24
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,866
    What exactly are people trying to accomplish going to such lengths with these films? In the days when medium and large format gear was expensive and when Tech Pan was readily available along with the developer it could make a certain kind of sense for some photographers and subjects. But now? None of these films are as good as Tech Pan with Technidol was, and that wasn't good for everything and every subject. Films like TMX are far better, or at least far finer grained, than even slow conventional films of the pre-T-grain era, and finally medium format and large format gear is much less expensive. Get some TMX or Acros or Delta 100 (in that order if you are after the finest grain) and spend some time to really dial it in with pretty much any standard developer. If that's still not fine grained enough for you in 35mm, get a medium format camera for the same or less money than you'll spend on repeated Procrustean attempts to adapt a film poorly suited to pictorial photography to do something it isn't designed for.

    If you just like tinkering, fine, I get that though I prefer to use my tinkering time and energy on things less frustrating and more likely to be workable.

  5. #25
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,537
    Roger, then you could also ask why people are using type 135 anyway... I mean, using it is not only a question of the price of larger format equipment.

    And Kodak Technical Pan was not readily available over here as far as I remember. At least not easier than those high-resolution films of today.

  6. #26
    fatso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Montreal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    The only very fine-grained film I've ever discovered that had long exp range (a long relative straight line
    to the characteristic cuve, reminiscent of some faster films) was Efke 25 (now discontinued). It worked
    wonderfully in ordinary developers including my preferred pyro options. By contrast, micro-films like
    Tech Pan needed special developers, were always disappointing in the shadows and highlights, and had
    poor edge effect, so actually looked less sharp in a typical print. Pan F works nice is your lighting isn't
    especially harsh.
    Hi Drew, Rollei Pan 25 is Efke 25.

  7. #27
    fatso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Montreal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Роберт View Post
    RLS/CG-512 is an ultrafine grain type developer which should be used on 24C. So for an acurate processing you need a Jobo processor or something like that. And like all ultra fine grain type developers you have to over-expose the film +1F stop which means an E.I. 25-32 for the Retro 80S film.
    Hi Роберт,

    I exposed it at E.I 25. I have a Jobo but is it really necessary (I only get 0.1 - 0.2 C variation from start to finish when processing manually in a tank) ?

    Retro 80S Review by Aurélien LE DUC

    Quote:

    The film was developed in a small tank (Jobo 1500 serie tank and reel), in
    RLS diluted 1+4 at 24°C for 10,5 minutes. During development, 5 inversions were
    realized every 30 seconds, as recommended by the supplier. At the end of the
    developing time, the film was sunk in a 3% acetic acid bath (from Téténal) as a stop
    bath and then 6 minutes in fixer (SuperFix from Téténal, diluted 1+4). Then the film
    was washed with the method developped by Didier Carré (film was washed ten times
    during ten minutes and the final rinse was realized with distilled water containing
    Ilfotol wetting agent (dilution recommended by Ilford 1+200).
    The second test was carried out to reach a speed of ISO 50. Shooting
    conditions were the same as previously.
    To reach such a speed, the film needed to be developped 13,5 minutes in RLS
    in the same conditions as what I described before.

    As a conclusion, Rollei Low Speed developer gives very reliable results with the
    Rollei Retro 80S film. Indeed it gives very thin grain, a very large grey scale, deep
    blacks, and highlights are not burnt. Due to the nature of this deep developer, very
    similar to Ilford Perceptol, nominal speed (ISO 80) of this film can’t be reached.

  8. #28
    fatso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Montreal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    What exactly are people trying to accomplish going to such lengths with these films?

    Hi Roger, I make 40" x 40" enlargements and want to finest grain possible - my Zeiss lenses are clearly outresolving TMAX 100 so I'm looking for a higher resolution film with similar tonality (in 120 rollfilm)





    Paul

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,637
    Quote Originally Posted by fatso View Post
    my Zeiss lenses are clearly outresolving TMAX 100 Paul
    How do you know this?

  10. #30
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,866
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    Roger, then you could also ask why people are using type 135 anyway... I mean, using it is not only a question of the price of larger format equipment.

    And Kodak Technical Pan was not readily available over here as far as I remember. At least not easier than those high-resolution films of today.
    Well it hasn't been available here for a long time either, as I think I said.

    The reason to use 35mm nowadays, in my view, is for easy handheld shooting, quick operation with moving or rapidly changing subjects, and very fast lenses for low light. None of those lend themselves to big, grainless prints of stationary subjects, and even if you do get them to appear grainless, sharpness is going to be limited by motion, either camera or subject or both, more often than not.

    In other words, if you are going to put the camera on a tripod and take photos of stationary objects and make large prints, use a larger camera. And if you aren't doing those things I don't think the film will help you much as the other factors will be the limiting ones.

    Quote Originally Posted by fatso View Post
    Hi Roger, I make 40" x 40" enlargements and want to finest grain possible - my Zeiss lenses are clearly outresolving TMAX 100 so I'm looking for a higher resolution film with similar tonality (in 120 rollfilm)





    Paul
    Well ok, THAT I understand. I can't print larger than 16x20 and, though I wouldn't mind being able to do 20x24 don't think I'd do it that often if I could. My standard print size from medium and large format is 11x14 more often than not, and 8x10 from 35mm.

    If you want to make very large prints like this you need something else. The film may help, but the sacrifices in tonality are not worth it IMHO though they may be to you. My suggestion would be large format but I realize it isn't for everyone. I enjoy working with 4x5 but it can be trying at the best of times and not by any means suited for all subjects. It would probably be great for the example you posted, though.

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