Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Christer Almqvist wrote: > > > > > > >Is pushing a medium speed preferable somehow to just using a 400 speed film? > >mark rabiner > >:) > >http://spokenword.to/rabiner/ > > YES! ........ unless you push the 400, because then the 400 will be faster. > > Sources: > > 1. The Film Developing Cookbook by Anchell and Troop ISBN > 0-240-80277-2 page 54, 2nd para; I thought you said you had read the > book ;-) ><Snip> He says that run in FX1 or 2 rated at 200: FP4 or Verichrome will give better results than Tri x at 200 with a speed loosing developer like Microdol X or Perceptol. Both are being shot at 200. You're not really doing a push or a pull but in a way you are. Among the many problems with this comparison is that Microdol X is a solvent developer. A fine grain developer with much Sulfite (125 grms per liter straight) which smooths grain edges by melting them down destroying resolution. People seldom use solvent developers any more or developers not diluted so it's sulfite content approaches 100 grams per liter because they don't like fried mush film. The "fashion" is now films with LESS fine grain but better "sharpness". (Xtol seems to give us both, a rule breaker) FX1 a stronger grain to match it's extreme sharpness. FX1 is a High definition non solvent developer almost identical to my Beutlers formula i used for years. Might be exactly the same. Are we getting a real one stop speed increase with a High definition film developer? Not in my experience and I've never seen it. I'm a touch incredulous on it. But what if it was the case that you could get 200 out of 100 films with the stuff? Would you compare those results against Tri x melted down in Microdol? A pushed film against a pulled? Pulling for the most part is over exposing and under developing; a compression of tones; mush negs. But giving a neg minimal but adequate exposure and adequate development will render a clean well separated neg, easier to print. Many feel a pulled neg gives a neg with more infirmation and easier to print. This is not my experience. More info maybe. But murder to seperate out on paper. The slower the film the better the result. I don't agree with always using a 400 film and not being tested at all out on slower films for very well lit scenes or tripod stuff. The thinner the emulsion the better i like it. I've done shoots in the studio where I've run out of plus x and had to shoot a few rolls of Tri x. Even in the contact sheets the Tri x looked terrible in direct comparison! I've said often I'm getting 100 speed film results with Delta 400 with Xtol 1:3. But when i do shoot Delta 100 which I've shot 20 rolls in the studio with in the last 10 days; it comes out a whole lot better than the Delta 400. that's for sure!!! It's a thinner film. NO grain. a cleaner looking image. It looks like slow single emulsion films like Pan F, Panatomic, APX 25. It comes so close I've pretty much stopped using them. But one more test of Pan F in Xtol just to make sure it doesn't blow me out of the water. mark rabiner :) http://spokenword.to/rabiner/