Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/01/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 19:06, Ted Grant wrote: > 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 have read a lot of this and done some testing of my own. To me Delta 3200 @ 3200 souped in DD-X looks better than the same in D76. Again for reason I do not fully understand certain developers only support films up to a certain speed. Maybe someone with a better technical understanding of this can chime in and clear things up. > > 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 . Wasn't Tri-X originally sold by Kodak as a 200asa film, but had plenty of headroom, so it could be used as a 400asa film? If Delta3200's true speed is 1200 asa then shooting it at 3200 means it is only being pushed about 1.5 stops, which should still yield acceptable results. But shooting Tri-x at 3200 means pushing it a hell of a lot more. Again, I am not a Zone system-Ansel Adams wanna be shooter who sits around with a densitometer and approaches his development/printing methodology like he's preparing for a trip to the moon, but I do understand the basics and that includes that the less you have to push or pull a stock to get to the asa you want to be at the better off you will be. Feli > > ted > Ted Grant Photography Limited > www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html