Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>[snip] >I second Henry's concerns about Delta 400. It looks like it has a great big >LUMP in the shoulder which pumps up the high midtones and highlights. Ilford >don't show this in their curves but it is there. If you If you try to print >them down you lose luminosity and shadow separation. It is a bugger, >especially in any kind of sunlight. Like Henry I just can't get it looking >right. In fact I have given up. Whenever I go back to my old standard APX >400 I just sigh with pleasure and relief and the beautiful greys and gentle >highlights. I like it best in Xtol 1:3 but it is very good and a bit less >grain in Xtol 1:2. I can't understand why more people don't use this film! >And it is CHEAP!!!! >[snip] >Have had a very frustrating time recently with chromogenic films, Delta 400 >etc. Even when I was getting everything technically right, I just wasn't >getting anything back from them. What a relief to see the APX still works. > >Johnny Deadman For me, the current quest is getting Neopan 1600 right. Until just recently I used a local lab which always gave me back Neopan negs that looked like lith film. Now I'm souping my own film (in XTOL, as many here have recommended) and just last night processed a roll in XTOL 1:2 for 10 minutes, the time given by the massive development chart. Results: good shadow detail and very fine grain but still very dense highlights. So, for the next roll I'll cut development time by 20% and see what happens. I'm not frustrated yet - challenged is the better word. I'm determined to get this film right and add it to my "lineup" - there are too many times when 400 ain't fast enough. Guy