Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BEF919.F9A08DA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DR. BLACKTAPE CAN'T HELP BUT COMMENT... A post of this sort is what makes the LUG worthwhile... ;-) -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Christer Almqvist Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 4:08 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: [Leica] Tri-X vs Delta 3200 test results Benefitting from having two M6s and being able to shoot two films under identical circumstances, I recently compared Delta 3200 to Tri-X. Both films were exposed at an e.i of. 1600 because the French magazine Réponses Photo found there was a loss of shadow details if Delta 3200 was exposed at 3200 or higher. The M6 light meter was used, and I took care not to include any direct light sources when metering. There was one exposure as metered and two underexposed (by one and by two steps) and two overexposed (ditto). The scenes photographed included people at an outdoor café at around midnight, the opening night at a photo exhibition (very contrasty light), a young man in his kitchen lit by a mixture of natural light and fluorescent tubes as well as a few other scenes. The films were developed in Xtol diluted 1+1 for 13 minutes at 20°/68° with very gentle agitation for 10 secs every minute. Kodak's recommended time for Tri-X would be 11.75 minutes, but I have always found it necessary to increase their times by about ten percent (capacity???). The Delta 3200 time is in line with what Réponses Photo used, although I had to convert their 'undiluted' times to 1+1 times. The unadjusted exposures came out just fine, and both films had about the same densities. The print exposure times (as measured by an RH Analyser) were within one-fifth stop of each other and the paper grades for a specific scene were the same for both films, except for the café scenes where Delta needed a harder grade paper. The prints made were 9.5 x 12" (24 x 30 cm) but some of them were of parts of the negative and enlarged 16 times; that is the maximum for my Leica V35 enlarger. Good ol' Tri-X came out very well in the comparison. I looked for grain, sharpness (as I define it) and shadow details when viewing the prints. Delta 3200 had more shadow detail than Tri-x (dark trousers of the young man in the kitchen, black T-shirts worn by some people at the café), but Tri-X had more 'punch' in some other areas. Given a choice, I prefer 'punch' to shadow details in trousers and T-shirts. A brick wall painted white has some more grey shades on the Delta print than on the Tri-X print. The prints were both made on the same grade paper as this was what RH Analyser said, but the negative seems to have the same amount of details, so I guess this is a result of how the Analyser reacts to different film bases. Looking at underexposed negatives, Tri-X comes out on top. I guess this is because the development time increase for Tri-X at 3200 is just under two minutes (as per Kodak), but it is six minutes for Delta (as per Réponses Photo). I guess that with an e.i. of 6400 the results will be different, but for 1600 I am sticking to Tri-X. -- christer almqvist eichenstrasse 57, d-20255 hamburg, fon +49-40-407111 fax +49-40-4908440 14 rue de la hauteur, f-50590 regnéville-sur-mer, fon+fax +33-233 45 35 58 - ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BEF919.F9A08DA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <?fontfamily><?param New_York><HTML><HEAD> <META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" = http-equiv=3DContent-Type> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT = size=3D2><SPAN class=3D850341310-07091999><FONT color=3D#0000ff = face=3DArial> DR.=20 BLACKTAPE CAN'T HELP BUT COMMENT...</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT = size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D850341310-07091999></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT = size=3D2><SPAN class=3D850341310-07091999><FONT color=3D#0000ff = face=3DArial>A post of=20 this sort is what makes the LUG worthwhile...=20 ;-)</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT = size=3D2><SPAN = class=3D850341310-07091999></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT = size=3D2><SPAN class=3D850341310-07091999> </SPAN>-----Original=20 Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us=20 [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]<B>On Behalf Of</B> = Christer=20 Almqvist<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, September 07, 1999 4:08 = PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20 leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Leica] Tri-X vs = Delta=20 3200 test results<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></FONT>Benefitting from having = two M6s=20 and being able to shoot two films under identical circumstances, I = recently=20 compared Delta 3200 to Tri-X. Both films were exposed at an e.i of. = 1600=20 because the French magazine R=E9ponses Photo found there was a loss of = shadow=20 details if Delta 3200 was exposed at 3200 or higher.<BR><BR>The M6 = light meter=20 was used, and I took care not to include any direct light sources when = metering. There was one exposure as metered and two underexposed (by = one and=20 by two steps) and two overexposed (ditto). The scenes photographed = included=20 people at an outdoor caf=E9 at around midnight, the opening night at a = photo=20 exhibition (very contrasty light), a young man in his kitchen lit by a = mixture=20 of natural light and fluorescent tubes as well as a few other=20 scenes.<BR><BR>The films were developed in Xtol diluted 1+1 for 13 = minutes at=20 20=B0/68=B0 with very gentle agitation for 10 secs every minute. = Kodak's=20 recommended time for Tri-X would be 11.75 minutes, but I have always = found it=20 necessary to increase their times by about ten percent (capacity???). = The=20 Delta 3200 time is in line with what R=E9ponses Photo used, although I = had to=20 convert their 'undiluted' times to 1+1 times.<BR><BR>The unadjusted = exposures=20 came out just fine, and both films had about the same densities. The = print=20 exposure times (as measured by an RH Analyser) were within one-fifth = stop of=20 each other and the paper grades for a specific scene were the same for = both=20 films, except for the caf=E9 scenes where Delta needed a harder grade=20 paper.<BR><BR>The prints made were 9.5 x 12" (24 x 30 cm) but some of = them=20 were of parts of the negative and enlarged 16 times; that is the = maximum for=20 my Leica V35 enlarger.<BR><BR>Good ol' Tri-X came out very well in the = comparison. I looked for grain, sharpness (as I define it) and shadow = details=20 when viewing the prints.<BR><BR>Delta 3200 had more shadow detail than = Tri-x=20 (dark trousers of the young man in the kitchen, black T-shirts worn by = some=20 people at the caf=E9), but Tri-X had more 'punch' in some other areas. = Given a=20 choice, I prefer 'punch' to shadow details in trousers and T-shirts. A = brick=20 wall painted white has some more grey shades on the Delta print than = on the=20 Tri-X print. The prints were both made on the same grade paper as this = was=20 what RH Analyser said, but the negative seems to have the same amount = of=20 details, so I guess this is a result of how the Analyser reacts to = different=20 film bases.<BR><BR>Looking at underexposed negatives, Tri-X comes out = on top.=20 I guess this is because the development time increase for Tri-X at = 3200 is=20 just under two minutes (as per Kodak), but it is six minutes for Delta = (as per=20 R=E9ponses Photo).<BR><BR>I guess that with an e.i. of 6400 the = results will be=20 different, but for 1600 I am sticking to=20 Tri-X.<?/fontfamily><BR>--<BR>christer almqvist<BR>eichenstrasse 57, = d-20255=20 hamburg, fon +49-40-407111 fax +49-40-4908440<BR>14 rue de la hauteur, = f-50590=20 regn=E9ville-sur-mer, fon+fax +33-233 45 35 = 58<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> - ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BEF919.F9A08DA0--