Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,533   Posts: 1,544,008   Online: 1047
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,542
    Images
    77
    Back to the original question...

    I have shot a fair amount of this in 2x3, 3x4, and 4x5. While Rodinal works well on it, it really shines when developed in W2D2+. It was if the expansion of zones 2,3,and4 were pressed into the film emulsion. What was solid shadow in Rodinal, broke into 3 distinct zones in the W2D2+. This was a test using both sides of a 3x4 film holder in a Zeiss Trona using exact same exposures, not more than 30 seconds apart. I had expected there to be changes in the upper zones of the film, not the bottom end. BTW, I meter and shoot at E.I. 160. For Rodinal, you might want to take it down 2/3s more (E.I. 100).

    Don't get me wrong, you will get very printable negatives inRodinal 1+50 @ 68deg for 12/13 min.

    tim in san jose
    Where ever you are, there you be.

  2. #12
    Alex Hawley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,895
    Images
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    My impression is that Forte made significant changes at a certain point to their 200 speed film, as they later did with the 400 speed film (increasing density range significantly), so I suspect it is more an question of a single upgrade that took a while to filter down to all the different brands of Forte film than a random consistency issue from batch to batch.
    David, if I remember right, Sandy confirmed this in his testing and posted the results on the Azo forum. My empircal experience shows the same thing; I was exposing and developing the new emulsion with the old emulsion methods and getting very dense negatives, with enough contrast to warrant a water bath on Azo grade 2. Still very printable on Azo but a significant change in exposure times. I also agree with what Sandy said about developing it in ABC pyro; difficult to control. I believe the new emulsion behaves better in Pyrocat HD and has an improved range.
    Semper Fi & God Bless America
    My Photography Blog

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    155
    Thanks to all for responding.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,645
    Let me rephrase my question: If J&C 200 actually requires an EI of 100 ( my experience as well as others), then why use it instead of other films that are rated at ISO 100? I like Efke 100 & hope J&C Pro 100 in sheet film is as good as its 120mm version. Is there anything special about J&C 200 that would make one select it over the two previous films I mentioned?
    van Huyck Photo
    "Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"

  5. #15
    gma
    gma is offline
    gma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    793
    Images
    9
    J&C 200 costs less. That makes it pretty special for me.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by doughowk
    Let me rephrase my question: If J&C 200 actually requires an EI of 100 ( my experience as well as others), then why use it instead of other films that are rated at ISO 100? I like Efke 100 & hope J&C Pro 100 in sheet film is as good as its 120mm version. Is there anything special about J&C 200 that would make one select it over the two previous films I mentioned?
    I have not used J&C Pro 100. From passed experience, The films I used (Tri X, HP5 & FP4) are rated below box speed. That led to my unscientific decision for buying Classic 200. Is J&C Pro 100 a true 100 speed with conventional developer? Anyone knows? Thanks!

  7. #17
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by eggshell
    I have not used J&C Pro 100. From passed experience, The films I used (Tri X, HP5 & FP4) are rated below box speed. That led to my unscientific decision for buying Classic 200. Is J&C Pro 100 a true 100 speed with conventional developer? Anyone knows? Thanks!
    That was my logic too. It seems like I have to under rate everything I shoot by 1 stop. I wanted to shoot at 100 speed so I went for the 200.
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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