Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/01/26

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] should be Tmax 3200 at 1600/was TriX at 800
From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:06:43 -0800
References: <001001c3e45d$e7302750$b2710e44@newukolbqveo9i> <p06020400bc3b59ad13d9@[68.106.255.242]> <p06020400bc3b60b9ba8d@[68.106.255.242]> <1075167271.15963.81.camel@creo_pc3>

Feli di Giorgio offered:
Subject: Re: [Leica] should be Tmax 3200 at 1600/was TriX at 800


 > I have read that the true speed of TMX3200 is about 800-900asa, Delta
> 3200 is 1200asa and Neopan1600 is really about 640asa.<<<<<<<,,,

Hi Feli,
If this is true what developer and times do you use when you actually shoot
these films? Or have you just read something others have said?

I use Neopan 1600 at 1600 and soup it in XTOL 1:1 and get very good results.
This at 1600, or occasionally @ 3200 I use for indoor shooting and the grain
is quite good as 11X14 prints.

However, one is always looking to improve their quality so why would this
film be sold and advertised as 1600 when in actual fact you say it's really
640? Boy in that case I have a great number of massively under exposed
negatives even though they print very well .

ted
Ted Grant Photography Limited
www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant




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

Replies: Reply from Feli di Giorgio <feli@creocollective.com> (Re: [Leica] should be Tmax 3200 at 1600/was TriX at 800)
In reply to: Message from "Jeffery Smith" <jls@runbox.com> (RE: [Leica] TriX at 800)
Message from Steve Barbour <kididdoc@cox.net> (RE: [Leica] TriX 3200 at 1600/was TriX at 800)
Message from Steve Barbour <kididdoc@cox.net> ([Leica] should be Tmax 3200 at 1600/was TriX at 800)
Message from Feli di Giorgio <feli@creocollective.com> (Re: [Leica] should be Tmax 3200 at 1600/was TriX at 800)