As much as I am a recovering tech-geek,
the photographic process buffers the granularity of any film and developer combination.
Handled well, there is not much difference between any ISO class of film, certainly not enough to
be reason to choose, for instance, FP4 over Plus X.
The REAL differences are three-fold:
1. Color response. There are subtle differences between FP4 and PLus-X. And a vast difference between them and the pseudo-ortho signature of APX 100. If you are shooting outdoors, FP4 will just about spare you a light yellow filter to record a toned sky. APX 100 is very sensitive to blue, and getting shadow and sky at once is... well, that's why I have so much experience flashing skies ! But for one film that flatteringly records every complexion of our planet, APX 100.
2. Film curve. FP4 and TMY have never-ending straight lines. Plus X does not. Pick your subject and your desired image, then pick the film that does the dirty work FOR you.
3. Availability. If I can't get it, or worse, if I think I can get it but CANNOT, it is no use to me. Even if it grainless 1000 speed film.
Thomas Wollstein (I believe he is a well known writer on photography) gives some data from Ilford Germany:
Different developer temperatures, right hand vs. left hand twists of rotation, stainless vs. plastic .......
Originally Posted by cmo
Thanks, more enlightened observations
Yes, within a speed family and grain type, and probable fudging by Fuji (how's that for alliterration?), there is little difference. One exception is Fomapan 100, noticably more grainy than most of the others. Still, a nice film and at a rock bottom price, especially as the Arista variant.
Originally Posted by df cardwell
I took some shots on the new TMY, including the various B&W filters I have. Didn't do any manual compensation, just let the camera do its thing. I have to tell you, the one through the blue filter made the most stunning negative! I haven't tried to print any yet, but it just jumped out at me, beautiful contrasts and tones.
Tab water vs. Perrier, sure
Originally Posted by Paul Verizzo
Well, not really, just one standardized method, of course.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Paul, which blue filter did you use? 47?
Originally Posted by Philippe Grunchec
After due consideration I have to add that Kodak gets Lines per by analyzing positive and negative images on a film to guage bloom and fill in, two characteristics that are typical of resolution. In bloom, a dense black spreads into a white surround, and in fill in, a dense black background expands into highlight areas. Lines per is some function of both neg and pos lines.
These two factors must be known to determine response from LPM.
For RMSG, the diameter of the reading spot must be known so that there is no aliasing of the grain. For example, if you pick a diameter of the spot larger than your grain, the grain appears lower than it actually is, because the spot is averaging two grains. You must have a diameter much smaller than the grain. If you do not, then you have offset your data (aliased it) from the true value.
Also, with grain, there is instrument noise. We determined this by casting pure dye with no grain. It was a uniform background, but we picked up a rather unexpectedly large grain value due to the noise of the instrument reading such a small size and at the density levels required.
So, LPM are not really LPM depending on how you do it, and RMSG is not RMSG depending on how you do it. One of the raging debates in dye stability is whether to use 100 FC or 500 FC to fade color images. You get totally different answers depending on test method.
Now, how could we make a common measuring unit? If every manufacturer has its own method we compare (green) apples and (yellow) bananas.
Just to confirm, where you say for example, Fuji Across 200 lines per millimeter, thats means 200 line pairs per millimeter. Yes?
Originally Posted by Paul Verizzo