Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/04/15

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

Subject: [Leica] Hey B.D., what kind of B&W film do you like
From: jsmith342 at cox.net (Jeffery Smith)
Date: Sat Apr 15 08:19:29 2006

Ethol TEC stands for Thin Emulsion Compensating developer, and it is what
works well on Technical Pan and H&W Control Pan film. That is the extent of
why I assumed slow films to be thin.

Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA
http://www.400tx.com




-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+jsmith342=cox.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+jsmith342=cox.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Walt
Johnson
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 9:59 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Hey B.D., what kind of B&W film do you like


Daniel,

Well, I aways thought the exact opposite. Given the thinness, there was 
less scattering of light in the emulsion and consequently more 
sharpness. The thicker emulsions are always higher ISO. I was just 
comparing  unprocessed strips from Bergger, Foma 200 and HP5 yesterday. 
The faster film is obviously thicker, even to the nude eye. ;-)

Walt

Daniel Ridings wrote:

>Not plus-x. I just shot a couple of rolls. If you want bullet-proof 
>negatives, D76 at Kodak's recommended times (1:1 8.5 minutes) will give 
>you that.
>
>I was always under the impression that the emulsion on faster films was 
>thinnner.
>
>Daniel
>
>On 4/15/06, Walt Johnson <walt@waltjohnson.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Many years back...Emulsion on slower films is just too thin. .I even
>>remember Panx ;-)   Tech pan was so sharp It made a Nikon look like
>>medium format .
>>
>>Walt
>>
>>Daniel Ridings wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Excuse the lousy translation from Swedish: Why go across the stream 
>>>to fetch water?
>>>
>>>Have you tried Plus-x ?
>>>
>>>Daniel
>>>
>>>On 4/15/06, Walt Johnson <walt@waltjohnson.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Yes, B.D.,
>>>>
>>>>Any suggestions for a "silver rich" B&W film? Tri-X, HP5, Bergger, 
>>>>Foma, Fuji????? None seem to have the emulsion I remember from some 
>>>>years back. Even Bergger, which is doggone pricey, seems thin by 
>>>>comparison. Sure wish I could get some old Tri-X from about 1972. I 
>>>>could care less about sharpness, or grain, but do like tonality.
>>>>
>>>>Your Humble Idiot Savant
>>>>
>>>>Walt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Leica Users Group.
>>>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Leica Users Group.
>>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Leica Users Group.
>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Hey B.D., what kind of B&W film do you like)