Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 3:08 PM -0700 4/13/03, Dave Rodgers wrote:
>Chris,
>
>You said that "T-Max 100 is well known for producing less than sharp
>looking prints." That's a very general statement which I think is
>untrue. I read your follow up comments. Shouldn't spend too much
>time on the matter? What better to spend time on that film choices!
>
>As far as magazine reviews, I don't trust them to be all that
>objective. Terms like "slightly unsharp edges"...compared to what.
>Could be magspeak for "vendor doesn't purchase enough advertising
>space" or "I can't find anything else wrong with this film, but I've
>got to think of something." Who knows, maybe they tried a high
>solvent developer for kicks.
>
>For several years I used the Delta films, D100/D400. Great films,
>both. When Ilford came out with the new and improved D400, or 400
>Delta, or whatever, I was confused by the change in developing
>times so I moved back to what I'd shot years ago, TMX/TMY.
>Ironically, the only reason I moved away from the Kodak films was
>that I kept reading bad things about TMY. During my Delta phase,
>every time I made prints from old TMY negs I realized that it had
>performed pretty darn well. And my TMX prints always displayed
>stunning acutance.
>
>I personally find the Kodak films to be slightly faster than the
>Ilford films. Plus the only developer I use anymore for 35mm is
>XTOL. Anchell & Troop state that "for tabular films, XTOL is the
>solvent developer of choice." But they also state that "XTOL is
>effectively a nonsolvent developer, but because of its careful
>buffering, grain is still fine." IOW, fine grain plus acutance.
>
>Unsharpness is not a problem with any of the modern 100 speed films.
>They'll all react differently in different developers, so when
>someone complains about lack acutance I want to know more.
>Especially when a subjective view conflicts with a lot of objective
>data.
>
>"Well known" to me implies fact or truth, commonly accepted
>knowledge. I still don't buy that it's well know that TMX results in
>less than sharp looking prints. But I do appreciate your response.
>
>DaveR
>
>BTW, I always try and use the slowest films possible, not because of
>grain or accutance, but because I like shooting a wide apertures.
>
Sharpness has a variety of meanings, and while I wouldn't want to put
words in Christer Almqvist's mouth, I, and I believe he, refer to the
lack of acutance that is a common problem this film vs. others. It
seems closer in character when printing to the chromogenics, without
the benefit of their greater speed or much greater dynamic range when
processed under common conditions.
TMX tends to produce lower acutance negatives under similar treatment
than Delta 100 and some of the other slower, non-tabular films. It's
dynamic range also seems a little bit more limited, due to a greater
propensity to blocked hilights. Delta 100 also blocks up more easily
than non-tabular films, but this is its only failing, in my
experience.
- --
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html