Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,489   Posts: 1,542,932   Online: 864
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    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

  2. #32

    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

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Masstts. USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    ... High shadow detail isn't always necessary. Neither are grainless images.http://www.flickr.com/photos/kediwah/sets/



    Nice stuff to prove the point.
    "Get over it."

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    680
    Tri-X developed in XTOL 1:1 is somewhat less grainy vs development in D-76. Suggest enlarging with a diffused light source and avoiding overdevelopment. That said, a monopod and FP4 rated up to 200 may work.
    RJ

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Western Masstts. USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    273

    Low and Slow

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Jepsen View Post
    Tri-X developed in XTOL 1:1 is somewhat less grainy vs development in D-76. Suggest enlarging with a diffused light source and avoiding overdevelopment. That said, a monopod and FP4 rated up to 200 may work.

    Do you develop FP4 rated at 200 in XTOL 1:1? Would it make sense to try HC-110?

    Also,

    Are there any advantages, for any developer, in developing at lower temps for longer times in lower concentrations of developer? In terms of grain, contrast, etc.?

    Best,

    Rudy
    "Get over it."

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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