Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,545   Posts: 1,572,845   Online: 1010
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 34 of 34
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhi
    What is KB14? I don't recognize that as a brand..

    Thanks.

    -Mike
    KB14 is an old Elfe 20 ASA (yep that old) Film. There's a thread here.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    923

    KB17, R17

    Bear in mind AA made 'Moon and Halfdome' on R17
    Mark Layne
    Nova Scotia
    and Barbados

  3. #33
    mikewhi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Redmond, WA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    808
    Images
    9
    OK, here are some comparisons. Same scenes shot moments apart with EFKE 25 and TMAX 100. Both rated at mfgr. ASA ratings. Both taken with the same camera\lens. I used a Red #25 filter and gave +3 stops more exposure than indicated by a Pentax 1Deg. Digital spotmeter modified by Zone VI and approved by me, Mike. I metered the foreground, placed the dark areas on Zone III (for non-zoners, I metered the shadows and closed down 2 stops from what the meter said then opened up 3 stop for the filter factor). Bother were processed for 'normal' development times. Unfortunately, I didn't do my own testing\calibration on these films so I used published figures. I developed in Rodinal 1:50.

    At any rate, the shadow is what's important in this comparison (at least the comparative density in what should be the thin areas).

    I wold be interested to hear comments on the results.
    The results are not as close as I thought at first. I'ts pretty clear that the EFKE shadows have much more detail than the TMAX, resulting from more exposure. It would seem that this film actually requires a smaller filter factor than the TMAX film does - or I'm rating it too low. Looking at the lake where the trees are on the lar left, there is a lot more detail in the EFKE film - getting close to a half-stop more, I'd guess. Using my densitometer to measure densities, there is also a lot more local contrast in the EFKE netagive. There isn't that much difference in the absolute density between the densest areas of the 2 negatives, but when I measure the densities in the trees on thr far right half way up the negative, there is a lot more of a difference in the EFKE film.

    Another striking difference is that in the sky, the TMAX negative is thinner in the bluer-parts of the sky, that parts that the red filter should filter out. This is a good thing. I will get more contrast in the sky from the TMAX film.

    I'm thinking that I need to test and establish a personal ASA speed for the EFKE film. It may well need to be faster than 25 for me. The neative is more dense overall than the TMAX film which cannot be accounted for by the development.

    Could the spectral sensitivity of the film have anything to do with this extra overall density?

    -Mike

  4. #34
    mikewhi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Redmond, WA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    808
    Images
    9
    Here is an 8x10 EFKE ASA 100 negative taken on the same trip. Also used with a Red #12 filter, +3 stop factor. This looks particularly nice. DR is in the range for Azo.

    -Mike

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