Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark, Your experiences are very interesting and, I think, back up the idea of exposing for the shadows, for that is just what you describe with your use of a lower ISO rating for Plus-X. You didn't extend development time; no, you gave it more exposure to get more separation in the shadows. You did the same thing for Delta 3200, much more drastically, but you don't say if that was to get more detail in the shadows. That has been most people's experience with Delta 3200, that it is actually a 1000 speed film, or thereabouts. What you said about Panatomic-X was particularly interesting, because when Kodak removed the so-called safety factor on B&W films in the early sixties, they doubled the ratings of most films, but not Panatomic-X, which they increased only to 32 from its original 25. Your experience indicates that they should have doubled that too, that 50 was the right speed for it. Thanks, Robert > >> >> Ted, >> >> So what you are saying is that you shot at the film maker's recommended >> exposure index (except when pushing the film), and developed it at the >> developer maker's recommended time and temperature, for your whole >> career, >> and never saw any need to vary either one? And you always used an >> average >> exposure reading without taking specific shadow or highlight readings? >> >> That is certainly keeping it simple. >> >> Robert >> > 99.999 percent of the time the ASA on the box is the ASA I end up using. > On 50 different films. > > Exceptions > Plus x I use a 100 instead of 125. Big deal. > Shadows had not been separating quite like I wanted them to. Tweaked it. > Then they did. > > Delta 3200 I use at 1200. That is a big deal. I guessed it would be 1600 > and > it needed an additional half stop. Ultra fast films can be funny. The rest > tend to not be at all funny. > > That's it. Mainly in Xtol but other developers too. > > In the real old days my signature film was Panatomic x and it was ASA 32 > but > I shot it at 50. As I think that's what it really was. In Beutlers and > Rodinal. Over exposed Panatomic x was ugly. And made it unpopular. And if > you shot it at 32 you were going to over expose it in my opinion. And > that's > what everyone mainly did. > > Mark Rabiner > 8A/109s > New York, NY > > markrabiner.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >