Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,000   Posts: 1,524,346   Online: 786
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Latvia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Stanworth
    which jessops film? I have used the 200 speed rollfilm and it was very nice.

    They do 100 and 400 for 35mm
    I'm not sure, just noticed it was there.
    Will Jessops be fine? I've never heard anything about Jessops at all.
    It's twice as expensive ar Tura (which I've been using since now)

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Rhine valley
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    107
    Back in 2003 I bought Jessops own brand b/w film up in Scotland and it felt like Agfa/Tura. They films were labelled made in EC and at that time this outruled Foma, Forte, Efke, leaving Agfa and Ilford.
    (The last years Tura used to cut Agfa filmmaterial to size, so one could find the same Emulsion number on an Agfa and a Tura box, e.g. 628 for APX 100.)

    If Jessops is twice the price stick with Tura, as long as you can get it.

    Regards,

    Wolfram
    Colour? We can always use an airbrush later...

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,050
    You are simply over developing. Expose at EI 80, develope in D76 UNdiluted one shot and throw away. Store the fresh mix in one time use bottles filled to the top. Never let air get to D76. You will get inconsistent results.

    6.5 min at 68 and agitate 5 inversions in 5 sec every 30 sec. Drop the loaded reel in the developer in the dark unless you use a Patterson tank designed for daylight filling.

    HC110, is handier, but the results will not be as good.

    Shoots some tests on six exposures at the front of a roll. Then pull off the 12 inches in the dark and develope just that much until you get it just right.

    I find T Max no fussier than any other reguarding time/temp than say tri x if you want perfect repeatable results.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    cat do any hard to try the jessops so if Tura is not available at any point you have an alternative, assuming you like it.

  5. #25
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    I'll tack on to the end of this thread with a related question:

    I have been avoiding T-max for years because my very limited experience with it didn't give me the results I like (I like FP4+ in Ilfosol-S, APX100 in pyrocat-HD, and EFKE in Neofin Blau). But now I've got a chance to buy some relatively cheap outdated 13x18cm T-max 100 glass plates, and the oppurtunity is just too rare to pass up.

    So I need help: How do I get the contrast I like without blowing out the highlights? Mind that these plates will most likely be printed on alternative processes - but maybe not all on POP...
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    416
    Images
    11
    Hi Ole.

    Tmax is extremely consistent if processing techniques are extremely consistent. It is as simple as that. When you test for threshold exposure, run two plates. 1 shot at an aperature 4 stops smaller than the metered reading and one shot at 3 stops larger than meter reading. Control your time and temp with the greatest accuracy you can apply. It the densest sheet is over 1.35 and the lightest is .1 to .15 then you have developed too long.

    Once you find the right time, N+1 and N+2 can be approximated by adding 30% over normal development for each. N-1 and N-2 may be approximated by reducing normal development by 25% for each.

    I use Tmax RS 1:9 @ 75 degrees as recommended by Sexton. My times will not be relevent to you since I am doing rotary processing.

    Use your developer one-shot and use ballast sheets to put the same development load on each batch.

    PM me if you want further discussion. You will really be impressed by the push and pull capabilities of this emulsion!

    Good Light!!!!

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    this last post is very true. I have never found real probs with contrast if temp and time are controlled. However, I personally think it is awful stuff and like others cannot really explain why I dont like the results. There is something missing to my eye. Its just plain dull to me, lifeless. I want to like it, as I still have 50 readyloads in the fridge. I will use it, but for techie scenes such as architecture or for scenes dominated by shadow and highlight where it is actually very very good. My snowdonia sunset shot on my wall looks good to my eye for this reason as I think as shadow and highlight speration is good. I find hower, that it is in the mid tones where Tmax is terrible. scnes that are dominated by middle grays (maybe z4-6) jjust look lifeless. Unfortunately this is 99% of lanscapes, portraits etc. I will never buy it again and if I need packet film, will use acros, which is much prettier, but still sufers sometimes from that too modern look, lacking mystique.

    I have used ID11, pyrocat HD and exactol Lux and all suffer th same. Pyro devs definitely help tame hot spots tho!

  8. #28
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Thanks Blaughn,
    but that wasn't exactly what I was asking, I think...

    First if all I tend not to do any testing. I assume that the first sheet or plate or whatever is a test, and make extensive notes about the EV values of various areas of the scene, but that's as far as it goes. With film and plates in these sizes I usually develop by inspection, so I tend to be very inconsistent about times.

    I can avoid blown highlights by stopping development at the right time (and that's what I usually do), but Tmax tends to give me "boring" negatives whatever I do. Even when I follow instructions; and when I give the "extra" (N+x) that I often do to increase the contrast the hihglights tend to block up before the contrast is where I like it. So I normally prefer more "flexible" emulsions than the "funnygrains".

    I'll try a scene with a "normal" contrast range first - if I can find one...
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    416
    Images
    11
    We have a dialogue between a test and analyze proponent (me) and a use it and take good notes (you). Both approaches are valid. I take extensive notes while shooting as it helps me to learn more about the materials I am using so we have some common ground there. Acknowledging that we come at the problem differently, let me throw out some suggestions.

    I have never developed by inspection. When I first view a negative, the one that is most appealing to my eye is the one where the highlight densities seem to "pop". These negatives, however, are almost always pushing highlights up into the shoulder of the curve were information is lost. Is it possible that your eye is calibrated to the same bias as mine?

    I really don't want to launch a "defense of TMax" thread. There is simply no point. I use it successfully as do others. I read your earlier post as you were probably going to be lured into the TMax jungle by the bargain pricing and were looking for some hope that it would not be simply money down the drain. To this end, if you just can't resist the bargain on the glass plates, I suggest a simple test: Let your eye be your guide in development and then use a densitometer to see where your eye is leading you (for both the blown highlights as well as the boring highlights.) What I am suggesting is that perhaps this emulsion is different enough under inspection development conditions that you are overshooting your mark on either side of the ideal. If you are sneaking into the 1.35 and above (diffusion enlarger), you need to either recalibrate your eye for this emulsion or switch over to a strict timed development regimen.

    Your description of overshooting on N+ is also not unusual. The understanding that film manufacturers' recommended times are starting points is especially true for TMax. Without a means of calibrating results, I wouldn't know how I would approach the process. Once you have established an acceptable "normal" development time for TMax, the "add 30% for N+ and subtract 25% for N-" will get you extremely close.

    Good luck.

  10. #30
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    There is a bewildering variation in the response when developing by inspection, but the main variable is the developer, not the film. The term "surface developer" really begins to make sense when you see how the development proceeds when using one of these - it has nothing at all to do with the individual grains, but the entire emulsion side goes dark from the surface in! Other developers will develop more evenly throughout the emulsion, and ignoring the difference can give nasty surprises when your eye is "calibrated" to one developer! Since I like to experiment, I'm well aware of the differences. Now. Since some of my favorite developers are FX-2, Beutler's (surface and extremely surface respectively) and Pyrocat-HD (surprisingly "depth" for such a dilute developer), I have learned.

    One advantage to glass plates is their weight - or rather density: They sink! That makes stand development a lot easier than with sheet film, which has a nasty habit of drying out after only an hour or so. If you put a glass plate in a tray of developer, it's going to stay below the surface! And that's my "n-x" method: About 90 minutes in half-strength FX-2 will tame contrast without losing local contrast. The rest of the time I try to keep developing until slightly past the "panic point" where I'm sure it's all gone black. If I pull it then, I get what I would call N-1. So I try to wait... My main failure is underdevelopment.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

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