Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,990   Posts: 1,524,200   Online: 1161
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51
  1. #41
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,046
    Images
    223

    fp4+ vs delta 100 vs PLUS-X 125 vs NEOPAN 100 ACROS

    Also either way the guy never commented again haha


    ~Stone

    The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  2. #42
    grommi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    98
    What's bad about excavating old threads? This is a great one, although it may appear a bit ridiculous on the first sight. It isn't. Not at all. I didn't read this one before and it's imho a great discussion explaning the basics of exposure. Read the data sheets from the manufacturers, learn the basics of densitometry and always be aware that there is a huge difference between subject contrast, film contrast and paper contrast. And it explains why silver based photography is still miles ahead over digital capture regarding contrast handling. This is real high dynamic range (HDR) with one single shot. The most advanced bw film probably is Acros 100, expose it from about EI 3 to EI 400 on a single roll of film and get great negs. Basically it works with many (not all!) bw and colour negative films with boxspeeds from 100 to 400. Look at the density curves from the data sheets and you will know what works and what doesn't. Acros is easy, FP4+ may be difficult.

    Still you often can read that the "modern" (hahaha, Tmax is how old?) emulsions have to be exposed very exactly. This of course is nonsense. The old rule "if in doubt, add one stop" still is fine. Or two, or three :-)

    Best - Reinhold
    Last edited by grommi; 11-05-2012 at 06:03 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    36
    Expose Acros at ISO 3??? In god's name why?

  4. #44
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,046
    Images
    223

    fp4+ vs delta 100 vs PLUS-X 125 vs NEOPAN 100 ACROS

    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    Expose Acros at ISO 3??? In god's name why?
    Maybe if it's 20 years old? Lol


    ~Stone

    The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Boston
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    Expose Acros at ISO 3??? In god's name why?
    Errors happen. Now I know that I should go ahead and develop the film instead of tossing.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,432
    never toss the film before you develop it. You might be surprised at what you get from it.
    - Bill Lynch

  7. #47
    grommi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    Expose Acros at ISO 3??? In god's name why?
    Not in gods name, in devils name :-D

  8. #48
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    352
    I think this threat is very good.
    This should be very soothing information for people using rollfilm.
    As long as you expose for the shadows all the rest nearly falls in place. Of course this is a big generalisation but one in my opinion does not have to be overly concerned about all other factors to a reasonable extend.
    Just don't underexpose in my oppinion is the most important thing to say.
    Although I remember once photographing with acros 35mm film on a sunny day. I exposed the film with 40 iso developed it in Xtol I think it was, using a tripod and the results were extremly unsharp negatives. I presume because of light scattering within the emulsion.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by grommi View Post
    The most advanced bw film probably is Acros 100, expose it from about EI 3 to EI 400 on a single roll of film and get great negs. Basically it works with many (not all!) bw and colour negative films with boxspeeds from 100 to 400. Look at the density curves from the data sheets and you will know what works and what doesn't. Acros is easy, FP4+ may be difficult.

    Best - Reinhold
    If this was an example of dry humour which it might be then fine but I suspect you are saying quite a lot here in a serious fashion but unfortunately not saying enough for me to understand fully. Could you expand on the above?

    Why is Acros the most advanced B&W film? Why start at EI 3?

    What works with b&w and colour neg films? Is this a reference to their dynamic range so that a film with a box speed of 100(Acros in this case) can be successfully exposed at 5 stops over and 2 stops under?

    Why is FP4+ difficult? Is this a reference to it's smaller dynamic range compared to Acros i.e. it can handle ?s stops of both under and overexposure?

    These are genuine questions on my part and not an attempt to try and take your post apart in an aggressive fashion

    Thanks

    pentaxuser

  10. #50
    Stephanie Brim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,607
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    I think this threat is very good.
    This should be very soothing information for people using rollfilm.
    As long as you expose for the shadows all the rest nearly falls in place. Of course this is a big generalisation but one in my opinion does not have to be overly concerned about all other factors to a reasonable extend.
    Just don't underexpose in my oppinion is the most important thing to say.
    Although I remember once photographing with acros 35mm film on a sunny day. I exposed the film with 40 iso developed it in Xtol I think it was, using a tripod and the results were extremly unsharp negatives. I presume because of light scattering within the emulsion.
    The "expose for shadows, develop for highlights" philosophy is not new. Read "The Negative" by Ansel Adams.
    No idea what's going to happen next, but I'm hoping it involves being wrist deep in chemicals come the weekend.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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