Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Tri-X vs. HP5+ at ISO 800
From: Guy Bennett <gbennett@lainet.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 08:55:06 -0800
References: <001901c18251$5dbfd760$6401a8c0@attbi.com> from "Oliver Bryk" at Dec 11, 1 06:37:31 am

>at 800 ASA, you might also consider Fuji Neopan 1600 which in my testing
>has a true speed of around 800 or so, so no pushing would be required for
>your application.
>-rei


Which would make sense why I always got contrasty negs from Neopan rated at
1600 and developed normally, since if that was true I was pushing it one
stop.

After some testing, I finally got it right for the Fuji: I cut normal
development time (10 mins in Xtol 1:2 @ 68°, as per Anchell & Troop) by 30%
and use light agitation (3 gentle Slinky-style inversion + a soft twist per
minute after the 1st minute of agitation).

Comes out perfect every time now.

Guy



>> From: "Oliver Bryk" <oliverbryk@attbi.com>
>>
>> To plan some work in available semi-darkness with my Summicron-M f/2, I
>> asked my friendly b&w custom processor for his views on rating Tri-X at ISO
>> 800 (Jim Mitchell's M.O. for his rock photos). Pierre said that in his
>> experience HP5+ was more amenable to pushing than Tri-X.
>> I would be curious about any confirming or dissenting views regarding the
>> specific choice between these two emulsions.
>> Oliver Bryk
>>
>--
>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "Oliver Bryk" <oliverbryk@attbi.com> ([Leica] Tri-X vs. HP5+ at ISO 800)