Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Honestly speaking, I get surprisingly good development and prints from HP5+, APX 400 and Tri-X from my local drugstore. The main downside is there one week turnover for black and white which is, however, still better than Kodachrome. I contacted their contract lab, but they were not wiling to reveil any details on the developing technique except: Agfa roller processors, a standard developer combined with a fine grain developer at 21.5 C° and 3'30". I believe they use Agfa Refinal M which is a compensating developer tailored for machine processing. I even tried Tmax 400, Delta 400, Neopan 400 and 1600. To my great surprise, only the Tmax 400 was superior in grain and sharpness to the HP5+, at the cost of higher contrast of course. The negs look great, but apparently are difficult to print. Despite the Delta's and Neopan's reputation of being more forgiving to developer choice, time and temperature the results were disappointing: more grain and more contrast than the HP5+. I rated the Neopan 1600 at ASA 1200 and the results look overexposed. I used only one roll to take some shots in a Jazz club under difficult, high contrast light conditions: spot lights on the artists and dark background. So I do not want to make general statements about film/development quality. But my feeling is that it is not worth the hassle. Better stay with HP5+ and rate at ASA 400. In terms of consistency, the results from that lab should be better than an amateur's home processing. Do some test rolls, find a matching preferably a "traditional" film and enjoy the results. Hans-Peter