Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,152   Posts: 1,614,100   Online: 804
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15
  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryuji View Post
    I think your memory of good negs from old days and bad negs from eary days of tabular grains are persistent. Tabular grain technology today is FAR improved from 1980s and it became far more flexible in making various kinds of emulsions. Tonality of Fujifilm Acros, Delta 400, and T-MAX P3200 (at EI1600) is indeed pretty good and if I had lots of deep frozen Panatomic-X or Verichrome Pan I'd happily sell them at a premium price and buy bricks of Acros and what not. (I actually have some APX25 and VP... just too lazy to bring them to black market.) I know people had bad negatives before tabular grains, too.

    In terms of developer repertoire I have absolutely no complaint. Sure, the film developers on market are still nothing new but I can happily live with 2 film developers to cover 98% of my needs. (And since they were extensively tested with Acros, Neopan, Delta, Plus-X and Tri-X during the research and development phase, they work very well with both tabular and non-tabular films. And they also produce negs that are easy to print as well as scan, which was also one of my requirements.) Anyway, the point is that, I don't think the number of developers is the issue, but rather that the developers available on market today weren't necessarily optimized for today's films and today's applications and user preferences.
    Dear Ryuji,

    Unless Acros has improved spectacularly since its introduction (as I know Delta 400 has) I really don't care much for its tonality. Current Delta 400 is OK, though I still much prefer HP5 Plus, and I wasn't counting '3200' films because Ilford HPS and Kodak's Royal-X and 2475 were not general-application in the same way. The tonality of generously-exposed Delta 3200 is indeed gorgeous.

    Super-XX was unsharp and grainy, but I've seen very few tonally poor Super-XX negs: it really did seem to be idiot-proof. With Panatomic-X and Verichrome Pan I'll cheerfully concede your point. I may have overstated things -- no, let's be accurate, I DID overstate things -- but HP5 and Tri-X are still tonally nicer, in my eyes (and those of many others), than T-Grain or Delta. This is not pure traditionalism: I prefer XP1 and XP2 to T-grain and Delta too, unless, as I said, the latter are perfectly exposed and developed.

    As for dev repertoire, I agree, provided you are half-way sensible about dev choice -- but there are more and more people who want to use frankly outdated (and untested) developers from the 1950s and before, and then complain (accurately if not justly) because they get huge grain or low speed or lousy tonality or any combination of these with 'high-tech' films. In one sense, serve 'em right -- but it's still true that the dev repertoire is smaller...

    Cheers,

    R.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    Unless Acros has improved spectacularly since its introduction (as I know Delta 400 has) I really don't care much for its tonality.
    The current film "Fujifilm Acros 100" in this name is not that old. It's a relatively new product, much younger than Delta 400. I think Acros hasn't changed since then and it's always been a wonderful film.

    I repeat that t-grain technology has nothing to do with latitude or tonality. It was just that the way t-grain film emulsions were made in the early days that had problems with narrower latitudes and harsher tonality. It's also that the developers weren't tuned for newer film technologies either.

    I use Neopan 400 and Delta 400 in my P&S all the time, and I've printed many images that were poorly exposed. (I definitely would not use T-MAX 400 for P&S.) From the user's perspective there is no difference whether they are t-grain or not.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryuji View Post
    The current film "Fujifilm Acros 100" in this name is not that old. It's a relatively new product, much younger than Delta 400.
    About 6-7 years? Or maybe half the age (or less) of Delta 400?

    Cheers,

    R.

  4. #14
    dmr
    dmr is offline
    dmr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    493
    I'm thoroughly convinced that the combination of 21st Century film and 70's vintage glass is a very hard combination to beat!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,416
    ... and the 21st century developers, too.

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