Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/08/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] My first band shots
From: "Gerry Walden" <gwpics@ntlworld.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:53:38 +0100

John

Sorry, but from my experience if this is what you are finding with Neopan
1600 then something is wrong. Personally I think it is a mismatch with the
Xtol. I have had very good results with Paterson chemicals.

Gerry

Gerry Walden LRPS
www.gwpics.com

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of John Straus
Sent: 23 August 2002 16:23
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] My first band shots


See, I told you I was not educated in talking about all this film stuff :)

But no matter how you cut it my Neopan  @ 1600 Xtol 1:3 negs suck compared
to Delta 3200 @2000 or 3200 in Xtol 1:2 shot in low light hard to see the
shadows places. Like shooting harshly lit bands in dark bars. I'll grab the
Delta over Neopan everytime. I'm not saying that Neo can't perform but for
me it's not the film for dark & contrasty settings.
- --
John Straus
Chicago, IL
http://SlideOne.com
http://SlideOne.com/EditorsRoom
==========================


on 8/23/02 1:25 AM, Mark Rabiner at mark@markrabiner.com wrote:

> Hi John! a few issues and disagreements:
>
> There really IS no 3200 film from what I can see!
> Kodak's has T-Max P3200. (Check the box) The P stands for push. As in
> you've got to push it to get 3200 out of it in a  developer which is
> good for pushing which may not be your favorite develop, Xtol in my
> case.
> Although I have to say that is easily done with their T-Max developer
> although I'm not too fond of the tonality and sharpness you get from
> that stuff. And I'm not the only one.
> T-Max 3200 tests out for me in Rodinal, D76, and other popular
> developers as 1600 to get the shadows to just come out right which is
> how you judge film speed.
> It's a 1600 film to call a spade a spade.
>
> Delta 3200 I figured would also probably be mainly a 1600 film.
> I shot many rolls in it in Xtol 1:1.
> The shadows were still not printing, they were all not quite there so i
> had to lower it it another half stop.
> That brings it down to ASA 1200. A stop and a half over Tri X. Big
> deal!?
> Well at least your not pushing Tri X! And the stuff's not cheap.
>
> Neopan 1600 tests out for me with Xtol 1:3 as being right on the money
> as advertised on the box 1600.
> And for some reason this film is inexpensive.
>
> So according to my findings if you want 3200 in black and white you are
> going to have to push. A mixed bag I think as the best developers are
> not pushing developers.
>
> Pulling though I'm not at all fond of either.
> I set my ASA to say 1600 because that gives me the shadow separation my
> printing paper requires for a full scale full substance print (my
> college textbook)
> If 1600 does it why would i want to give it even more exposure than that?
> I think in 35mm especially we want a minimum density negative  for a
> sharper less grainy image.
> This means a negative not any denser than it has to be.
> And we don't want to be over exposing which makes hard to separate
> highlights They go into the shoulder of the curve where it levels out.
>
> The pushing people are distracted and speedy. Always on the go cutting
> you off in the middle of a sentence. Rushing off to go mix up another
> gallon of D76. Maybe they're ADHD, I don't know.
>
> The pulling people though are laid back Berkenstok smirky self satisfied
> people who think they've got the inside track to Mahavisnu's latest
> outdoor holistic orgy. Not my type either.
>
>
> Mark Rabiner
> Portland, Oregon USA
> http://www.markrabiner.com

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html