Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/03/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 3/2/07 9:44 PM, "Robert Meier" <robertmeier@usjet.net> typed: > > Ted, > > So what you are saying is that you shot at the film maker's recommended > exposure index (except when pushing the film), and developed it at the > developer maker's recommended time and temperature, for your whole career, > and never saw any need to vary either one? And you always used an average > exposure reading without taking specific shadow or highlight readings? > > That is certainly keeping it simple. > > Robert > 99.999 percent of the time the ASA on the box is the ASA I end up using. On 50 different films. Exceptions Plus x I use a 100 instead of 125. Big deal. Shadows had not been separating quite like I wanted them to. Tweaked it. Then they did. Delta 3200 I use at 1200. That is a big deal. I guessed it would be 1600 and it needed an additional half stop. Ultra fast films can be funny. The rest tend to not be at all funny. That's it. Mainly in Xtol but other developers too. In the real old days my signature film was Panatomic x and it was ASA 32 but I shot it at 50. As I think that's what it really was. In Beutlers and Rodinal. Over exposed Panatomic x was ugly. And made it unpopular. And if you shot it at 32 you were going to over expose it in my opinion. And that's what everyone mainly did. Mark Rabiner 8A/109s New York, NY markrabiner.com