Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,117   Posts: 1,613,206   Online: 843
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    122
    I shoot in dark conditons without flash a lot, so i've tried a few fast films in my day.

    Obviously, testing is going to be important, but from what i've experienced, if you're happy with tri-x at 11x14 you'll be happy with neopan 1600 at 1600. I'm not sure about X-tol vs D-76 since i use mostly hc110, but in my experience neopan 1600 looks amazing. It can be a little contrasty, but it tones down if you use a little less vigorous agitation. I really really wish i could get it in 120.

    Ilford 3200 i've only used in 120 for 645, but to me it's almost silly how big the grain is at 3200 (never used it at a different speed). Even 4x6s were grainier than my 11x14s from tri-x in 35mm! I can't image what it looks like in 35mm.

    The other thing i like to do if i'm worried about grain on a big print from 35mm is to use a larger border than i would on an 8x10. A 1 inch border brings you down to 10x13, and sometimes i print the full frame w/ borders, which is more like 9x13.

    I've got some T-Max 3200 in the fridge i need to try out, so that's one i can't give you any advice on yet - (i'm still looking for some myself) but if it happens in the next week or so i'll post again.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Quote Originally Posted by ymc226 View Post
    According to some posts, TMY is more finicky to process compared to Tri X and Fuji Neopan. I have a bathroom as a darkroom and don't have any temperature control. When it is hot outside as it is these days, the cold water gets down to about 70 degrees at it's lowest. Is there enough latitude in the film that I can use the usual published times for 68 degrees?
    Yes, Kodak's TMax films are a bit more finicky to process because they tend to build contrast more quickly with extended development than more "conventional" emulsions, but it's not that big of a deal. All you need to do is be a little more careful with your time, temperature, and agitation. Kodak's tech sheet is very good, and I urge you to read it. Find it here. In it you'll find recommended times for processing at various temperatures; and if your temperature falls between two listed values, extrapolating between the two closest values will be fine. You can easily shoot this film at box speed with confidence.
    Frank Schifano

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central NC
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by ymc226 View Post
    I enlarge to 8x10 or 11x14 from 35mm negatives. Using Tri-X with Xtol 1:1, there is more grain than I would like on an 11x14 print that I really coned down on from the negative.
    Enlarging a 36mm wide negative to 14" is about 10x enlargement. With Tri-X you should be seeing some grain about then. If you want a little less graininess, use the XTOL straight. If that's not enough for you then you might want to try TMY-2. If you want to stick with Tri-X you might want to move to a developer with more solvent characteristics. But this will cost you some real film speed and a little sharpness too.

    Quote Originally Posted by ymc226 View Post
    I have done 11x14 before where most of the negative was used and I found the grain acceptable using Tri X or Neopan 400 shot at 320 and developed in D-76 1:1
    This is perhaps true. D-76 will cost you some film speed. Maybe 1/2 to 2/3 stop. If you didn't compensate for this, then your overall exposure was less and your developed density would therefore also be less (compared to XTOL 1:1 which will give you somewhat higher film speed and therefore correspondingly higher density for an identical exposure).

    Graininess is directly related to density. It's the metallic silver that makes up the films' density that also makes up the films' graininess.

    I'm just saying that one explanation for what you are seeing comparing D-76 and XTOL is the differences in the real film speed and the resulting image density. When I've compared film developed with D-76, HC-110, and XTOL and compensated for the real film speed and developed to the same contrast index (as well as I could without access to a lab) I've seen very little difference between them. The XTOL was perhaps just a bit sharper and perhaps just a bit less grainy. But at 10x enlargement it's not much of a difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by ymc226 View Post
    I plan on shooting indoors without a flash and want a B&W print film (35mm)/developer combo that can be enlarged to 11x14 with not too much grain (very subjective, I know).
    In that case you'll probably be more interested in reciprocity failure in your shadows. Another reason to think about TMY-2 maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ymc226 View Post
    I've read of Diafine with Tri-X rated at 1250 is a good pair. Is that the "best" combo or is Neopan 1600 rated at box speed or less with X tol or Delta 3200 with whatever developer better for less grain?
    Diafine will give you a boost in real film speed. But the cost is serious graininess. I doubt you'll like it at 10x, if you don't like Tri-X at 10x already.

    You may perhaps want to read up on the various capabilities of film developers. I like Anchell and Troops' The Film Developing Cookbook for this myself. Pretty readable and it gives a good and fairly clear explanation of what the various developers do and don't do. More knowledge you can use to find the right tools to do the job you want done.
    Bruce Watson
    AchromaticArts.com

  4. #24
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by ymc226 View Post
    I enlarge to 8x10 or 11x14 from 35mm negatives. Using Tri-X with Xtol 1:1, there is more grain than I would like on an 11x14 print that I really coned down on from the negative.

    I have done 11x14 before where most of the negative was used and I found the grain acceptable using Tri X or Neopan 400 shot at 320 and developed in D-76 1:1

    I plan on shooting indoors without a flash and want a B&W print film (35mm)/developer combo that can be enlarged to 11x14 with not too much grain (very subjective, I know).

    I've read of Diafine with Tri-X rated at 1250 is a good pair. Is that the "best" combo or is Neopan 1600 rated at box speed or less with X tol or Delta 3200 with whatever developer better for less grain?
    There are 6 ways to lower the amount of perceived grain.

    1) Increase the viewing distance.
    2) Use a slower film.
    3) Use a tabular grain film
    4) Use a fine grain developer (at the expense of sharpness)
    5) Use a larger negative
    6) combine two or more of the above.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

  5. #25
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,837
    Images
    57
    1600PR is probably the most versatile emulsion that still keeps grain under control under varying EI conditions. 400PR is a mid-speed film that can also be pushed to 3200 but not with the same results as it's faster brother. Then again, 400 is also noticeably sharper and if you have no reason to push, is the money choice.

    I hoard the hell out of both.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  6. #26
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,837
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    Another film hoarder. My kinda guy!

    Steve
    No joke. I still buy too, and I also support a few close friends who can't get film for cheap where they are. I do have a ridiculous amount of film, but I'm not entirely selfish with it - and hey, I'm supporting film! :-)





    I have almost no room in my dedicated film freezer these days and am going to rip out all of the Neopan from their boxes just to gain space. The newer stuff sits in the open, older and faster stuff frozen, and all exposed stuff in the fridge (which is about 50+ rolls right now).

    I don't need a digital camera - I need an intervention!

    But back to the original topic - yes, use Neopan 1600 for pushing and general low light. It's such an excellent emulsion, along with all of the other classics for general light or great light: Tri-X, APX, TMX/Y/Z, etc.

    We've never had better films than the ones we have now.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  7. #27
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,939
    Wow, are those boxen of 100 rolls of Neopan 400 35mm? Awesome. Where do you buy it all from; do you get bulk discounts?

    I use Arista Premium in 35mm, but I'm in love with Neopan 400 for 120 use. It's good and fast, faster than Foma 400 anyway, yet it has a really nice grain and resolution. And I can get it for about $3 a roll. Freestyle keeps getting it in and out of stock, so it makes me nervous. If I could afford to pile it high and stack it deep, I totally would, but for me, 15 rolls at a time is stockpiling.
    f/22 and be there.

  8. #28
    GJA
    GJA is offline
    GJA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    112
    clayne, you have disregarded all of the markings on your presto 100 boxes, rotate 90 degrees clockwise to store them the right way up.

    To the OP, I would try Neopan 1600, Delta 3200 (at 1600), Tmax 3200 (at both 16 and 3200) developed in whatever you think will suit your needs best (based on above posts).

    The real question is, how fast do you need? Would you like to shoot at 800, 1600, 3200 or 6400. Set our meter to 1600, put your camera in manual and with the shutter speed and aperture you want to use and meter a typical shot. If the meter says spot on, shoot at 1600, if it says under exposed shoot at 3200, and over exposed, shoot at 800. You get the point.

    I think on because this is such an individual scenario, you will gain more from experimentation than from reading these forums.

  9. #29
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,837
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by GJA View Post
    clayne, you have disregarded all of the markings on your presto 100 boxes, rotate 90 degrees clockwise to store them the right way up.
    No way will I let that OCD develop. ;-)

    I think on because this is such an individual scenario, you will gain more from experimentation than from reading these forums.
    Couldn't be any closer to the truth. The only way to determine what works is to try it. Some people have excellent luck with things others have crap luck with.

    As far as pushing film goes, if you're not a print sniffer or grainless angel type, then almost anything goes. I've pushed APX400 to 6400 and gotten results (albeit heavily grainy and contrasty, but still a photograph).

    People are going to tell you that such and such thing won't happen or be impossible, etc. - when in reality they really mean "sub-optimal to iffy results." No amount of pushing can create shadow detail that barely hit the emulsion, but one can end up with mid-tones and highlights still intact. The key is that the mid-tones and highlights convey to the eye and mind what the shadows might have looked like - so their absence doesn't necessarily mean the frame is junked. It's why contrasty pushed film still works without looking overly artificial.


    APX400@3200


    APX400@6400


    The beauty of this is that even though APX is actually not one of the best choices for pushing (at least from *my* results in comparison with other emulsions like Neopan), it still produces usable results. This doesn't mean go out and push PanF50 by 8 stops. It just means that there is a broad spectrum of what's "acceptable" to most people and experimenting always teaches us something valuable.

    If there was only one emulsion I had to carry around I would carry Neopan 1600 for it's awesome versatility. But it'd also be a hard choice against 400TX as it's another incredibly versatile film but more in-line with Neopan 400 in terms of sharpness.

    1600PR is stellar day and night:


    Neopan 1600@1600


    Neopan 1600@1600


    Neopan 1600@3200

    Guys, I love photography as much as the next guy, but I personally don't walk around with a tripod and an incident meter. I'm usually more concerned with the moment rather than sharpness, f/22 night shots, or pictorially perfect images. This is no Tmax 100 or zone system photography. It's just photography.

    We all know that familiar quote, in reference to choice of black and white vs color: "Sometimes color just gets in the way." Well sometimes the same thing goes for pushed film and general low-light shots: Sometimes shadows just get in the way. High shadow detail isn't always necessary. Neither are grainless images.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684

    A VERY Simple Home Brew

    Grain is largely a function of the film and the developer.
    For any one film the more active the developer the
    greater the grain.

    D-23 is a Home Brew with only two components, It is
    only moderately active. I use it VERY dilute, 1:7. At that
    dilution I believe it delivers great compensation. It will
    pull all the shadow detail you've recorded with out
    blowing the highlights.

    A starting point: A 120 roll, 500ml solution volume,
    a few inversions at start then 2 or 3 at 2 or 3
    minute intervals, 16 to 20 minutes. Dan

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