Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/15

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Delta 3200 & Neopan 1600 pushed...
From: John Straus <Mail@SlideOne.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:54:02 -0600

on 1/15/02 6:20 PM, Mark Rabiner at mark@markrabiner.com wrote:

> When "pushing" first look to your shadows. The thin areas of the neg.
> If they are clear instead of thin then you don't have any shadow detail
> and you haven't really "pushed" your film
> you've just under exposed it. But check by printing.

?? When you push film you are underexposing it then "compensating" for it in
development... There is some extremely faint detail in the shadow area but
needs to be more...
 
> Pushing mainly works with certain developers. The T Max developer, or
> Acufine the main ones i know.
> With most other developers you can develop till your highlights build up
> enough density to print on a normal contrast paper but a brunette will
> still have clear hair.
> No strands. You've underexposed.

Meaning you've under exposed for the limits of that film, right.
 
> You have to decide if you can just say good-by to shadow detail or not.
> 
> I never could.

I don't want to. This roll just seems too contrasty @ 3200 basically no
shadow detail.
 
> Xtol gives full film speed and not much more.

I hate to say I don't know what "Full film speed" means. I've read it
numerous times but never found a definition or reference to it.

So back to one of my original questions would more development time help the
situation for the areas that I can see something on the negs...?

- -- 
John 
Chicago, IL 
http://SlideOne.com
==================== 

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

Replies: Reply from "Don Dory" <dorysrus@mindspring.com> (Re: [Leica] Delta 3200 & Neopan 1600 pushed...)
Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@markrabiner.com> (Re: [Leica] Delta 3200 & Neopan 1600 pushed...)