Guest Ornello Posted March 13, 2012 Share #21 Posted March 13, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) To me, that's the whole point of using different films, not just for their various speeds. Delta 100 has a different look from Plus-X, even though they are similarly rated. Ditto HP5 and Delta 400. I agree, but to get the true picture you have to develop them to the same contrast. Otherwise you're not treating them equally. How do I upload a photo here? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Hi Guest Ornello, Take a look here Ilford Delta 3200. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Ornello Posted March 13, 2012 Share #22 Posted March 13, 2012 To me, that's the whole point of using different films, not just for their various speeds. Delta 100 has a different look from Plus-X, even though they are similarly rated. Ditto HP5 and Delta 400. Neopan 1600 shot at 640 or so. You can see when developed for normal contrast it looks splendid! Oh, before you think there is something wrong because there is no real brilliant 'white', be aware that the railings and trim are not painted white but a sort of light beige. This was my test subject for a number of rolls. Technical data: 50mm Summilux-R, Leicaflex SL2. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/174764-ilford-delta-3200/?do=findComment&comment=1953286'>More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 13, 2012 Share #23 Posted March 13, 2012 Scanned from a print, I assume? I'm not sure what your point is about the contrast. I have my own recipes for each film I use in my preferred developer and I know how to scan it to get the result that I want from it. I don't go round wasting my time comparing shots taken at the same time with different films. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 13, 2012 Share #24 Posted March 13, 2012 Scanned from a print, I assume? I'm not sure what your point is about the contrast. I have my own recipes for each film I use in my preferred developer and I know how to scan it to get the result that I want from it. I don't go round wasting my time comparing shots taken at the same time with different films. Yes, scanned from a print. The point? To compare the films so that you can see which ones you like, compare graininess vs speed, etc. It's far from a waste of time. I want to be able to use any of several films and develop them pretty close to identical contrast. When you do this you find only subtle differences between films of the same speed, for the most part. Tri-X and Neopan 400 are almost identical, but I prefer the latter's very slightly more brilliant highlight contrast. You can't arrive at this by randomly developing and changing films. You have to do it methodically. It's tedious but it was worth it. If you do this, you can see exactly how much is gained and lost as you go up in speed. I found that most of today's 400 speed films are good enough for almost all my work, so I seldom use anything slower. I also was able to see differences in color sensitization. Fuji films recorded foliage lighter than Ilford films, more natural-looking. I was surprised to find that Neopan 1600 is scarcely granier than Neopan 400 or Tri-X Pan; it is somewhat less sharp though, and has a more limited tonal range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 13, 2012 Share #25 Posted March 13, 2012 I agree, but to get the true picture you have to develop them to the same contrast. Otherwise you're not treating them equally I was always happy using Xtol and the development times from the Digital Truth's massive development chart. As I say I realised that the films looked different from one another, but I was more than happy with the results I got. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 13, 2012 Share #26 Posted March 13, 2012 I was always happy using Xtol and the development times from the Digital Truth's massive development chart. As I say I realised that the films looked different from one another, but I was more than happy with the results I got. Those times are only reported ones and should be regarded merely as starting points. You should run your own tests. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 13, 2012 Share #27 Posted March 13, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, scanned from a print. The point? To compare the films so that you can see which ones you like, compare graininess vs speed, etc. It's far from a waste of time. The only problem is that you are introducing several additional variables into the equation - though I recognise that it's impossible to avoid this regardless of whether you're scanning or printing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 13, 2012 Share #28 Posted March 13, 2012 Those times are only reported ones and should be regarded merely as starting points. You should run your own tests. I was happy with the results, I saw no need. I'd rather be taking photographs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 13, 2012 Share #29 Posted March 13, 2012 The only problem is that you are introducing several additional variables into the equation - though I recognise that it's impossible to avoid this regardless of whether you're scanning or printing. On the contrary, by developing them to the same contrast in the same developer you are eliminating variables. And by printing them, you are testing them in the context for which they were designed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 13, 2012 Share #30 Posted March 13, 2012 The Massive Development Chart is only a guide and all my times are different from theirs. They also have some alternative times when using Paterson developers that just confuse the whole thing, so I have always ignored those as a starting point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 13, 2012 Share #31 Posted March 13, 2012 The Massive Development Chart is only a guide and all my times are different from theirs. They also have some alternative times when using Paterson developers that just confuse the whole thing, so I have always ignored those as a starting point. Well you shouldn't. Someone went through a lot of bother to generate those data. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 13, 2012 Share #32 Posted March 13, 2012 And by printing them, you are testing them in the context for which they were designed. I haven't wet printed a negative for 40 years or so. The context for which the films were designed doesn't interest me as the alternative was not to shoot black and white film, and I loved shooting B&W film and the look of the scans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 13, 2012 Share #33 Posted March 13, 2012 The Massive Development Chart is only a guide and all my times are different from theirs. They also have some alternative times when using Paterson developers that just confuse the whole thing, so I have always ignored those as a starting point. So what do you think of the image quality of Neopan 1600? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 13, 2012 Share #34 Posted March 13, 2012 Well you shouldn't. Someone went through a lot of bother to generate those data. But if someone prefers something else does it matter? It's only personal preference after all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 13, 2012 Share #35 Posted March 13, 2012 I haven't wet printed a negative for 40 years or so. The context for which the films were designed doesn't interest me as the alternative was not to shoot black and white film, and I loved shooting B&W film and the look of the scans. I don't follow you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 13, 2012 Share #36 Posted March 13, 2012 I don't follow you. I'm not bothered about the context for which they were originally developed - wet printing - I scanned them and got superb results (technically if not often aesthetically). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 13, 2012 Share #37 Posted March 13, 2012 I'm not bothered about the context for which they were originally developed - wet printing - I scanned them and got superb results (technically if not often aesthetically). 40 years ago? What are you talking about? I'm not saying the films would scan much differently, but since I print my negs, I printed the test negs too, in the same way. Films are designed for printing, and that's how I believe they should be tested and compared. But no matter how they are used, for the purposes of comparison, they should be developed to the same contrast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 13, 2012 Share #38 Posted March 13, 2012 Well you shouldn't. Someone went through a lot of bother to generate those data. I know who that was - he used to be a member on this forum many years ago, until he was banned for being highly disruptive (well before my time as a Mod, but he'd probably have gone sooner if I'd have been in this position then). He knew absolutely nothing about scanning traditional black and white negatives and basically gave a lot of extremely poor advice. He basically said that it was impossible to scan traditional black and white films, which is just arrant nonsense. I wouldn't trust his judgement on the developing of my negatives, since he knows nothing about doing so in the context of scanning them. I prefer to use my own data, that works. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 13, 2012 Share #39 Posted March 13, 2012 40 years ago? What are you talking about? Films are designed for printing, and that's how I believe they should be tested and compared. What I'm saying is that I haven't wet printed a photograph for 40 years. I couldn't care less if they were designed for wet printing as there's no possibility of me ever doing that, therefore _I_ judge the film film from how it scans. You wet print, and that's fine too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 13, 2012 Share #40 Posted March 13, 2012 So what do you think of the image quality of Neopan 1600? I liked the little Neopan 1600 that I have used in the past. I bought 20 rolls of end of line stock only last month and have frozen it for future projects. I shot and processed it at 1600. This was shot with Neopan 1600, from memory. Handheld. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.