Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,558   Posts: 1,545,237   Online: 884
      
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 121
  1. #31
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    740
    Images
    19
    When I started shooting medium format my first 50 rolls were acros. I made some very wonderful images with it, but after that, I have only put 3ish rolls of t-grain film threw it. I have bounced all over, and all that been traditional grained films. I just like the look of them.


    PS. Stone don't be a troll, and try to get every thread you talk in closed.

  2. #32
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,337
    Images
    225

    Why all the dislike for tabular-type films?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder View Post

    {snip}

    That said, tabular-grain films are a bit less forgiving of sloppy exposure and processing that many of the more "conventional" products (even the newer, tweaked ones). Sloppy workers are going to have troubles with them by comparison and, since this group is often the most vocal and lazy, will bad-mouth the film and blame it rather than clean up their act.

    I think this latter comprises the bulk of the vilification of tabular grain films.

    {snip}
    +++++++++1
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #33
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,337
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by cjbecker View Post
    When I started shooting medium format my first 50 rolls were acros. I made some very wonderful images with it, but after that, I have only put 3ish rolls of t-grain film threw it. I have bounced all over, and all that been traditional grained films. I just like the look of them.


    PS. Stone don't be a troll, and try to get every thread you talk in closed.
    Sorry, my comment was only information added to the conversation, as it was pertinent to point out that the film being mentioned as Traditional, in fact was a hybrid... I thought that was important to point out. Not trying to be a troll.

    Also, the tread in question wasn't actually closed because of me, but because of others (so I'm told by the moderator).
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  4. #34
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,865
    The latitude of the film is stupendous, and no other film can do what TX does.
    This is hyperbole. Latitude is something that you can measure, and Tri-X does not have "stupendous" latitude. Tri-X does have better latitude than some films, but if you want latitude, TMAX has more. Tri-X does have nice grain, but the grain is very fine...if you want course grain, there are better films for that, and if you want fine grain, there are better films for that. I find that Tri-X is a rather ordinary film. A high-quality film, but not a film with any special qualities. So it's silly to say there's no other film that can do what Tri-X does because it's just not that special.

    On the other hand, there really aren't any films that can do what TMAX400 does. Tri-X can be substituted with any number other films with similar qualities, but if you are using TMAX400 for the fine grain, high speed, good sharpness, extreme latitude, and low reciprocity failure that it provides, there's not anything else that really falls on the map in the same place. Delta400 is comparable but not quite as good, in my opinion.

    TMAX400 is truely the "Have your cake and eat it too" film. If I had to standardize on a single film, it would have to be TMAX400. The combination of speed, grain, latitude, and sharpness make it the standout choice in everything from my Pen-F to 4x5. If I have one gripe, it's that it's slightly expensive and fixing it is really annoying.

    TMAX 100 is also phenomenal but a little less special; I think that Delta 100 and Acros are fine substitutes for TMAX100 in most situations.
    f/22 and be there.

  5. #35
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,337
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    This is hyperbole. Latitude is something that you can measure, and Tri-X does not have "stupendous" latitude. Tri-X does have better latitude than some films, but if you want latitude, TMAX has more. Tri-X does have nice grain, but the grain is very fine...if you want course grain, there are better films for that, and if you want fine grain, there are better films for that. I find that Tri-X is a rather ordinary film. A high-quality film, but not a film with any special qualities. So it's silly to say there's no other film that can do what Tri-X does because it's just not that special.

    On the other hand, there really aren't any films that can do what TMAX400 does. Tri-X can be substituted with any number other films with similar qualities, but if you are using TMAX400 for the fine grain, high speed, good sharpness, extreme latitude, and low reciprocity failure that it provides, there's not anything else that really falls on the map in the same place. Delta400 is comparable but not quite as good, in my opinion.

    TMAX400 is truely the "Have your cake and eat it too" film. If I had to standardize on a single film, it would have to be TMAX400. The combination of speed, grain, latitude, and sharpness make it the standout choice in everything from my Pen-F to 4x5. If I have one gripe, it's that it's slightly expensive and fixing it is really annoying.

    TMAX 100 is also phenomenal but a little less special; I think that Delta 100 and Acros are fine substitutes for TMAX100 in most situations.

    OK...so.... which is TMAX400 and which is FP4+? (EDIT: don't look at the file names... I forgot to make them blank...)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	comparison-FP4+at64-DDX1to4-6minR-2400-04.jpg 
Views:	78 
Size:	399.2 KB 
ID:	83801Click image for larger version. 

Name:	comparison-TMY2at200-DDX1to4-6minR-2400-05.jpg 
Views:	79 
Size:	398.0 KB 
ID:	83802
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	comparison-FP4+at64-DDX1to4-6minR-2400-05.jpg 
Views:	77 
Size:	380.0 KB 
ID:	83803Click image for larger version. 

Name:	comparison-TMY2at200-DDX1to4-6minR-2400-06.jpg 
Views:	73 
Size:	375.1 KB 
ID:	83804

    1:1
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2014-03-07 at 9.40.20 AM.jpg 
Views:	67 
Size:	664.8 KB 
ID:	83805
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2014-03-07 at 9.40.27 AM.jpg 
Views:	61 
Size:	646.0 KB 
ID:	83806
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,340
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    people just spew what they heard read or dreamt not what they experienced for themselves.
    It's worse than that. Even when they "experience" it they have no idea what they are looking at, and draw preposterous conclusions based on nothing.
    yep

    the interweb is not a place to learn about film or paper
    it is a tabloid stuffed full of opinion ...

    the best way to learn about film, to understand how it reacts
    with lenses, light, chemicals, and paper and light and chemicals
    is by actually using it.

    sigh. EEPinions ....

    when will this madness end ?!!

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    +++++++++1
    Sorry but not correct.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,752
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom1956 View Post
    The latitude of the film is stupendous, and no other film can do what TX does.
    Not correct.

  9. #39
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,865
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    OK...so.... which is TMAX400 and which is FP4+? (EDIT: don't look at the file names... I forgot to make them blank...)
    I'm not sure what you are trying to illustrate with your examples. It's hard to tell anything from the web, but if I didn't look at the file names, I would not be able to guess which image was shot with which film. The sample images you show look very similar to me. My interpretation is that TMY is just as sharp and fine-grained, and gives similar tonality to FP4+, while being 2 stops faster.
    f/22 and be there.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,752
    Nothing of value can really be illustrated with silly low resolution negative scans anyway. The excercise serves no purpose.

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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