Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,682   Posts: 1,548,519   Online: 863
      
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 121
  1. #11
    piu58's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    597
    There exist differences between print made from classical and tabular films
    1) Tabular films have a longer HD curve, with nearly no shoulder. That means highlight will come to a higher density and will not be compressed in the same degree as with conventional films. High density form small negative formats can nearly not brought on the paper, which lead to blocked highlights. The shoulder f conventional films reduces the contrast in highlights but the densities are not exceptional high, so you have at least some structure in this image areas
    2) Tabular films have a smaller grain. (Fine but visible) grain helps for seeing sharpness. I had problems with Rolle Retro 80s which is fine grained too. Processed in some developers the prints came out looking "sterile" or "digital". I switched to another developer and the problem is gone. This happens more with medium to large format negatives.
    ---
    Uwe Pilz

  2. #12
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom1956 View Post
    Well, since Verichrome Pan, Plus-X, Panatomic, and the others are all gone, that leaves Tri-X. At least as far as I know. And Tr-X has a distinctive grain, whether in D-76, or Microdol. Some people like the grain of TX and D-76. Though I'm basically a Microdol man, TX and D-76 makes for a marriage suited for those who like good grain. The latitude of the film is stupendous, and no other film can do what TX does.
    It took me a long time to "accept" T-max, though it's been around 30 years. But considering the alternative of digital killing film entirely, it has become tolerable to me to the point I'm glad it's out there. It really is some fine stuff, if you can put up with its stubborn fixing qualities. Seems like it's always hungry for fresh fixer and can't get enough of it.
    The new formulation of Tri-X (called 400TX to distinguish the difference) is actually a hybrid of "traditional" and tabular grain... So... It's not even really "traditional" anymore...
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    US
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,060
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    The new formulation of Tri-X (called 400TX to distinguish the difference) is actually a hybrid of "traditional" and tabular grain... So... It's not even really "traditional" anymore...
    The end of the 1980's was the end of human history. Now we live in the aftertimes when you have to eat your mush and like it.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lower Earth
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,016
    I don't particularly like T-Max or Acros. Has nothing to do w/ the tabular thing though, I just prefer Tri-X. I have to agree, they both do look a bit digital, meaning flat to me, and the blacks....I've seen better. But that's just my personal preferences. I recently saw some Across that was developed in something that I cannot remember.... D76 maybe?, and it looked fine. But I'm very happy w/ Tri-X, it does exactly what I want it to do, and have no reason to revisit the films that I tried before settling on it.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,859
    I enjoy using T-max film like the new 400.

    Jeff

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    621
    It's the internet, where bullsh*t comes as standard.

  7. #17
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom1956 View Post
    Well, since Verichrome Pan, Plus-X, Panatomic, and the others are all gone, that leaves Tri-X. At least as far as I know. And Tr-X has a distinctive grain, whether in D-76, or Microdol. Some people like the grain of TX and D-76. Though I'm basically a Microdol man, TX and D-76 makes for a marriage suited for those who like good grain. The latitude of the film is stupendous, and no other film can do what TX does.
    It took me a long time to "accept" T-max, though it's been around 30 years. But considering the alternative of digital killing film entirely, it has become tolerable to me to the point I'm glad it's out there. It really is some fine stuff, if you can put up with its stubborn fixing qualities. Seems like it's always hungry for fresh fixer and can't get enough of it.
    Well you name Kodak films but there are both traditional and tabular Ilford films, and (very) traditional Foma films. The Ilford ones are superb, and the Foma ones aren't bad - for 1965 or so. And that isn't entirely a criticism as I do shoot some Foma for fun.

    Anyway, I agree with the other folks, there is nothing at all wrong with tabular grain films. I do tend to gravitate toward conventional grain films for 35mm and medium format, because they are more forgiving in development (but less in exposure) and with roll film I give an entire roll the same development. I shoot TMY-2 in 4x5 because it's very responsive to development changes for contraction and expansion. But I could (and have) happily shoot TMY in 120 or, say, HP5+ in 4x5.

    The differences aren't nearly as big as people make them out to be, and I don't think the film makes a photo anyway.

  8. #18
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,916
    Quote Originally Posted by thegman View Post
    It's the internet, where bullsh*t comes as standard.
    +1000.

    I'd be willing to bet I could make 11x14s from 120 Tri-X and TMY-2 negatives and the tabular haters wouldn't be able to tell the difference between. "Would be willing" that is if I weren't too lazy to bother trying to prove something to others I've already convinced myself of so therefore I'm not going to bother.

    There's a learning curve to any new film or film/developer combo and they ARE different, but not as much in the curve as people think. Today's "traditional" films have almost no shoulder either for practical purposes (exception - Pan F+.) Mostly the tabular films are just finer grained and more responsive to changes and differences in development.

    Try a couple of rolls of each type in each speed you need, pick one or two films to stay with and get on with taking and printing photos.

  9. #19
    Tony Egan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,136
    Images
    69
    I prefer non-T grain film.
    Reasons given in other posts. It's a preference not a "dislike" or "hate", more like a clear aesthetic choice. This print looks better than that to me.
    http://www.tonyeganphotography.com/index.html
    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." Groucho Marx

  10. #20
    andrew.roos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    420
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by piu58 View Post
    There exist differences between print made from classical and tabular films
    1) Tabular films have a longer HD curve, with nearly no shoulder. That means highlight will come to a higher density and will not be compressed in the same degree as with conventional films. High density form small negative formats can nearly not brought on the paper, which lead to blocked highlights. The shoulder f conventional films reduces the contrast in highlights but the densities are not exceptional high, so you have at least some structure in this image areas
    I shoot Delta 100 (tabular) almost exclusively for landscapes and find the long flat HD curve a real benefit since you can record detail over a 10-stop exposure range without compression. Of course to print this you have to use dodging and burning to translate this to the exposure range of the paper. However that is preferable IMO to the compressed tonality in the highlights and shadows when using film with a pronounced "S" curve. Of course this is a matter of personal taste and YMMV.

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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