Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/01/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Wrong list to ask about real film issues. They've gone over to the chip side. I think the "thinness" is a possible adjustment for scanning. I've seen a source for this, but can't recall where. I tended to print on 3 or 3? on the old stuff, and still print about there with the new stuff. What do you call a large tank? An 8 35mm reel tank, or 4 reel 120, is not considered a large tank, even though one is using ? gal of chemistry. I find that I still have to pull my processing, as I shoot 400 at 200, due to the high contrast in So Cal. But Shooting Neopan 400 at 200, and 1600 at 800, still requires full processing time, if not longer depending on the situation. sd On Jan 10, 2009, at 6:22 AM, Dante Stella wrote: > Three questions for people who have used this film... > > 1. Should negatives look essentially like old TMY negatives, i.e., > a little thin? > > 2. Has Kodak abandoned the distinction between 120 and 35mm > development times? I seem to recall this being an issue in the > past, but looking at the latest Kodak developing time charts, that > distinction has disappeared (could this be related to the "new" > versions of TX and TMY)? > > 3. Does anyone have a large-tank starting time for D-76 1:1 at any > temperature? Kodak doesn't have any recommendations. It's not as > if 1:1 is going to lead to any abnormally short development time. > > Thanks > Dante > > > ____________ > Dante Stella > http://www.dantestella.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information