Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/01/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tmax is notorious for blocking highlights. It's almost impossible to do a time exposure with it to get a "foggy" water effect. Even Sexton prints that I've seen, done from Tmax films, seem to have a problem with highlights. Now if you look at Caponigro's work with older emulsions, well, there's just no comparison! On the other hand, when Tmax first came out, that emulsion was also different. It was so clean, with such a great mid range, that 120 looked like it was shoot with 4x5. Of course, it was processed with Tmax chemistry. The film itself was also much thicker. I had to have my SL66 back re-adjusted to that. sd On Jan 10, 2009, at 8:13 AM, Dante Stella wrote: > Thanks. I never used large tank times until I saw in a recent > Kodak leaflet (with the new TMY) that large meant 1/2 gallon and > up. I usually batch 8 rolls of 135 or 5 of 120, which is 2.5L in > the tank. I usually use small-tank times with inversions for 30 > seconds, then 4 turns every minute (so essentially the large tank > inversion). > > I just ran another load this morning, this time original TMY - > definitely comes out heavier. Same time, same temp, and this was > the *second* time the D-76 was being used. > > It's interesting that you have shadow problems in CA - when I was > in the desert outside LA shooting a few years ago and very recently > in Mexico City, the biggest problem was not shadow separation but > highlights - you could shoot with filters or without, pushing or > not, and still get poor cloud/sky separation. I don't know if > light meters go crazy at altitude or whether the human eye is > better capable of separating those tones than film is (my surmise > was that the blue light was off the chart and it was shouldering > out in the highlights). It's a bizarre issue that I never seem to > have in places that are relatively close to sea level. > > D > > On Jan 10, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Slobodan Dimitrov wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information