Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,880   Posts: 1,520,478   Online: 864
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Wow. I don't even know what to say anymore. I'm outta here.
    Why would you be (apparently) offended at what sounds like just honest difference of opinion here?

    I'm in the "can't see as it could possibly matter in medium or large format" camp, but your eyes and tastes may differ. I shoot mainly conventional films in 6x6, Tri-X and FP4+, and print up to 11x14. An 11x14 (or 11x11 or so square) from a 6x6 FP4+ negative is "grainless for all practical purposes" to my eyes, meaning if I get really close and look really close, without my glasses (I am very near sighted and can see very well if I get very close) I can make out the grain, but otherwise not. Tri-X is a bit more but still invisible unless you look closely for it. I would not hesitate to make a 16x20 from a MF Tri-X negative. Now if I were making 16x20s from 35mm, then maybe the differences between Delta 100 and TMX would be significant even to me.

    Even if one can see the difference and prefers TMX, I can't see it being enough to question the film/developer combination. Something else is going on here.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    204
    Btw, I just searched "Kodak XTOL" on google and was surprised to see one of my pictures show up. It's a low res Delta 100 scan from a test shoot, from a while ago:

    http://www.flickr.com/groups/b-w_fil...57624322664175
    (Delta 100 @ EI 125, Kodak XTOL 1+1 for 9 minutes @ 68F)

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    yes, but they have much greater acutance and bite to the grain, so the term 'mushy' should not apply. Xtol 1+1 and D100 is a super all round combo and it is both smooth and sharp. I do not know what could have given rise to the problem stated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    The TMX films are noticeably finer grained than their Delta counterparts. That will show up in areas of featureless density such as skies.

    I've got tests on this I can post if it will be of interest to anybody.

    How is a 16x20" print from a 6x7cm negative a 3x enlargement??

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,265
    Images
    2
    I don't use solvent developers with D100 and I stopped using Xtol due to it sitting around too long. I'm now on to Ilfosol 3 in 200ml bottles which keeps very well in the refrigerator and doesn't separate like Xtol. You can also try FX2 for biting clarity.
    W.A. Crider

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,861
    Images
    62
    Further results should be forthcoming.

    Tom

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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