Rating and processing 3200 rated film...

[Steve Ricoh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...for available light photography, by Johnny Martyr.

https://johnnymartyr.wordpress.com/2021/01/27/rating-processing-for-available-light-portraits-ei-3200-iso/

[Ornello]

Yeah, saw that. He's all wet. Ignore!

[malligator]

Good articles, and very timely. I've been shooting a lot of low light lately with 400 iso. It's technically okay, because I've got my 1.4/50 ASPH, but creatively they aren't what I want. I'm going to try pushing 400 to 1600 and get some TMax or Delta 3200. I might also try HC-110 instead of my standard D-76.

[Ornello]

She asks him why
"Why I'm a grainy guy?"
I'm grainy noon and nighty-night night
My grain is a fright
I'm grainy high and low
But don't ask me why
'Cause he don't know
It's not for lack of bread
Like the Grateful Dead
Darlin'

Gimme a head with grain
Long, beautiful grain
Shining, gleaming
Streaming, flaxen, waxen

Give me down to there (Grain !)
Shoulder length or longer grain (Grain !)
Here baby, there mama
Everywhere daddy daddy

Grain (Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain !)
Grow it, show it
Long as I can grow it
My grain

I let it fly in the breeze
And get caught in the trees
Give a home for the fleas in my grain
A home for fleas
A hive for the buzzin' bees (buzzin' beeeeeeeesssss)
A nest for birds
There ain't no words
For the beauty, the splendor, the wonder
Of my...

Grain (Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain !)
Grow it, show it
Long as I can grow it
My grain

I want it long, straight, curly, fuzzy
Snaggy, shaggy, ratsy, matsy
Oily, greasy, fleecy
Shining, gleaming, streaming
Flaxen, waxen
Knotted, polka-dotted
Twisted, beaded, braided
Powdered, flowered, and confettied
Bangled, tangled, spangled, and spaghettied!

Oh say can you see
My eyes if you can
Then my grain 's too short

Down to here
Down to there
Down to there?
Down to where?
It stops by itself

Don't never have to cut it
'Cause it stops by itself

Oh give me a head with grain
Long, beautiful grain
Shining, gleaming
Streaming, flaxen, waxen

Won't you gimme it down to there (Grain !)
Shoulder length or longer (Grain !)
Here baby, there mama
Everywhere daddy daddy
Grain (Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain !)
Grow it
Show it
Long as I can grow it
My grain (Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain !)
Grow it
Show it
Long as I can grow it
My grain (Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain ! Grain !)
Grain !

 

 

[philipus]

Thanks very much Steve, that's an interesting article. And an interesting blog, too. Anyone who speaks so warmly of one of my absolute fave lenses, the Summitar, will get me as a subscriber

 

On 2/15/2022 at 3:07 PM, Steve Ricoh said:

...for available light photography, by Johnny Martyr.

https://johnnymartyr.wordpress.com/2021/01/27/rating-processing-for-available-light-portraits-ei-3200-iso/

[giannis]

This bodes well with my experience too: Delta 3200 is a tiny bit more grainy and a little bit faster than TMax 3200, or equivalently TMax is more contrasty when exposed and developed at the same ISO as Delta 3200.

That said, both films (and especially Delta3200) look great shot and devved at 1600, with plenty of dynamic range and non-obtrusive grain. Xtol works fantastic with them (stock and 1+1), both in terms of speed and grain. I'm attaching a couple examples of Delta 3200, shot+devved at ISO1600 in Xtol.

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!

And an example to showcase a bit the dynamic range of Delta 3200 when shot and devved at 1600:

One key point from the article that I want to reëmphasise, is about quality of light. When shooting indoors at night (homes, restaurants, venues, shows, etc.), the main reason I'll use B&W is not speed - up until recently you could get ISO1600 colour film and Portra 800 still exists - but quality of light. Namely, light is of "bad" quality, not just warm tungsten, but many times hevaily tinted, especially when colour leds are used for part of the lighting. This is enough to overshadow most photos and ruin them. With black and white, you just don't care about temperature and tint of light, just its intensity, harshness/softness and shadows it casts, etc. . For instance, these couple photos (Delta 400 pushed to 800) were at a venue with red (almost monochromatic!) led lighting with a bit of tungsten mixed in, that would be unsalvageable in colour. In B&W it doesn't look half bad.

 

And another issue with low light shooting is contrast. Even putting aside the increased contrast of pushed film, usually many night scenes have an inherently high contrast which is only exacerbated by pushing. Examples could be stage lights, night cityscapes, etc. . Ideally, you'd want a bit of pull processing to keep the highlights in check, but this further reduces speed. Unless you use a compensating developer, like Diafine, which both pushes shadows and midtones (increasing speed) and "pulls" the highlights to prevent them from blowing. Which makes is ideal for low light. Here's an extreme example of how Diafine can handle extreme contrast, where actually highlights not only have been "ignored" when metering (fall where they may fall), but the shot overexposed a bit, and yet they were kept in check:

 

All in all, I've personally narrowed it down to this: up to ISO 800, I'll use conventional (cubic grain) film "pushed" to 800 in Diafine, since it gives true speed of 800 while protecting highlights, and it still is cheaper/more available and less grainy than the 3200 films. (Even if/when Diafine is not available, I'll still push "traditionally" some ISO400 film to 800 in Xtol, due to grain and price.)

From ISO1600 and up, it's Delta 3200 in XTol. It behaves great at 1600, it's good at 3200 and decent at 6400, at which point it's either that or not getting the shot. From 1600 and up, I find it beats everything else in terms of shadow detail, grain and contrast. Closing up, here's a mediocre shot but at the realistic edge of the limitations of film photography at night, Delta 3200 shot+devved at ISO6400 (in XTol), shot at f/1.5 and 1/30. Barring exotic f/1 lenses, after that point it's time for the flashgun to come out  

Edited February 17, 2022 by giannis
phrasing

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Johnny is wrong about several points. I'll address them one at a time.

First, he sees no point in using the '3200' films at less than that speed rating, and claims that ISO 400 films can be used at 800 or so.

Well, the truth is that the ISO 400 speed films are actually closer to 200, when tested. In other words, the ISO rating system is wrong (there is nothing wrong with the films!). Almost everyone who tests their films and exposure indices will tell you this. My data agree. The ASA numbers were doubled in 1960. This seems to have been a major blunder!

Here is a typical test:

https://www.halfhill.com/speed2.html

The relevant quote:

"I know my equipment is accurate. For one thing, I've obtained nearly identical results using many different cameras and meters over the years. I've used professional-quality cameras whose shutters were recently tuned up by repair shops. And when I use the same equipment to shoot color slide film—which has virtually no latitude for under- or overexposure—I get perfect results at the manufacturer's normal film speed. Black-and-white film, however, invariably calls for half the rated film speed or less."

I shoot ISO 400 films at EI 250, and likewise down the line.

 

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Ornello

[giannis]

1 hour ago, Ornello said:

JWell, the truth is that the ISO 400 speed films are actually closer to 200, when tested. In other words, the ISO rating system is wrong (there is nothing wrong with the films!). Almost everyone who tests their films and exposure indices will tell you this. My data agree. The ASA numbers were doubled in 1960. This seems to have been a major blunder!

Here is a typical test:

https://www.halfhill.com/speed2.html

The relevant quote:

"I know my equipment is accurate. For one thing, I've obtained nearly identical results using many different cameras and meters over the years. I've used professional-quality cameras whose shutters were recently tuned up by repair shops. And when I use the same equipment to shoot color slide film—which has virtually no latitude for under- or overexposure—I get perfect results at the manufacturer's normal film speed. Black-and-white film, however, invariably calls for half the rated film speed or less."

I shoot ISO 400 films at EI 250, and likewise down the line.

 

 

I don't agree with the statement about "ISO being wrong" at all. That website is not a test, it's a collection of anecdotal evidence and personal workflow. 

ISO rating is not wrong. It's very precise and standardised - in fact more so than digital! ISO is not defined by what each photographer likes or what type of enlarger they use or how deep they want their blacks in the print etc etc. . Thats a personal exposure index that is just that, namely a subjective setting that is convenient to you and gives you results that you like for your work. ISO is not defined like that. There's no point discussing ISO without plotting an HD curve, because such a curve gives the very definition and calculation of ISO. If anyone is talking about "true ISO" without the corresponding HD curve, they're talking about personal preferences and not ISO, simple as that.

ISO is very straightforward to calculate. You just put log exposure (in millilux seconds) on one axis, and on the other axis the density of film (as taken by a densitometer) . Then you start putting plotting points: for exposure x_1, what is the density of the film? Let it be y_1, so you plot point point (x_1,y_1). Similarly for exposure x_2, let the density be measured at y_2, plot point (x_2,y_2). And so on until you have enough points, the more the better. Then connect all the points together and you have the HD curve. The curve will start at some density even with zero exposure, the so called base+fog density, call it y_0. Then you go on the density axis (y axis) at point y_0+0.1 and draw a line parallel to the x-axis. This line will meet the HD curve at a point, say point A. that point will have coordinates (x_a, y_0 +0.1), i.e. x_A is the exposure in luxseconds for which the film creates a density of 0.1 units above base+fog. Now we focus on the x-axis, and move further right from point x_a by 1.3 units, so we're at point x_a+1.3.We draw a line parallel to to y-axis, at some point it intersects the HD curve. Call that point C, with coordinates (x_a+1.3, y_c), i.e. y_c is the density the film gives when subjected to exposure x_a+1.3 milliluxseconds. Now we check: is that y_c the same as (the density at point A plus 0.8)? I.e. do we have y_c=y_0+0.1+0.8? If y_c is larger, we move our point A a bit to the left across the curve and start again. If y_c is smaller, we move the point A a bit to the right across the curve and start again. When it's exactly that quantity, i.e. 1.3 units higher exposure than at A corresponds to density 0.8 units higher than (density at A + base/fog density +0.8), we call A the "speed point". Then ISO is simply 800/(10^x_a). It's a bit akward to describe but very easy to see with pen and paper on a real example. Here's an example of an HD curve that you could verify gives ISO100:

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!

 

There's no ambiguity about it, it's a very rigourous definition that leaves no room for interpretation and takes into account a film's contrast. If you follow the manufacturer's instructions with the same developer and dev technique they used for their ISO rating and plot the HD curve as well as the speed point to calculate the ISO, I guarantee you you will get the same exact ISO as the manufacturer, within 1/3rd of a stop (the leeway the ISO standard allows for stating/advertising the speed of film). Every single time. There's no trickery involved.

 

Also the thing about "doubling ASA" that the manufacturers did is not the thing you make it out to be. It's not that they raised their speed rating "out of the blue" in name only without actually improving the film. The speed has always been there, but they used to understate it. It was a time of crude lightmeters - if people used them at all - and simple cameras with a handful of shutter speeds and slow apertures. Film speed was routinely understated because you wanted people to err on the side of overexposure than underexposure and at least get a usable negative. Something photographers do even know - knowingly - for the same reasons, only back then Kodak and others made the decision for the amateur photographer and just understated the speed instead of expecting the consumer to do it himself. There's no great conspiracy of "fake" speed doubling.

 

That said, I also prefer to overexpose my film half a stop to a stop, and give it 5-10% less development, because I find flat dense negs to be the easiest to work with to get any kind of print I want. Other times I like compensating development or reduced agitation, etc etc. that all affect speed *and* contrast. But I'd never say that, for instance, HP5+ isn't ISO400 (within 1/3rd of a stop) even if I never shoot it above 200. But that is because I'm not following the manufacturer's recommendation for developer and contrast index (which affect speed), and if I were to follow them to the t, I'd get ISO400 bang on - as I have. There are manufacturers that are a bit "optimistic" about film speed, but that is the exception (for instance Foma), or it's about technical and other high contrast films (like aerial), where a different contrast index applies and a different method is used - sometimes without making it clear - to calculate a "usable" ISO for pictorial use, even if it's not the rigourous ISO of the specification. But it's definitely not the case for the major manufacturers (Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, etc.), whose ISO ratings are bang on.

[Ornello]

13 minutes ago, giannis said:

I don't agree with the statement about "ISO being wrong" at all. That website is not a test, it's a collection of anecdotal evidence and personal workflow. 

 

I didn't say it was undefined. It's wrongly defined! It's wrong because it doesn't give you the optimum print. Period. Everyone who tests his exposure to give good prints comes to the same conclusion. ISO is supposed to give the optimum exposure. It doesn't. There are thousands of confirmations of this! Yes, the films are accurately measured by the standard, but the standard is wrong! Read what I wrote, and what others have written!

A standard that doesn't do what it's supposed to do is wrong!

Edited February 17, 2022 by Ornello

[giannis]

3 minutes ago, Ornello said:

It's wrongly defined! It's wrong because it doesn't give you the optimum print. Period.

You have to elaborate on that. Optimum for whom? With what criteria? Printed on what grade paper? Glossy or matte? Condenser or diffusor head? Toned or not?

5 minutes ago, Ornello said:

ISO is supposed to give the optimum exposure.

Not at all! ISO is supposed to give an objective description of how film responds to a given amount of light. What you do with that response and how much exposure you decide to give the film is your own decision: maybe you want to prioritise shadows, maybe highlights, maybe both and you plan to pull, etc etc. .ISO has nothing to do with that, it's an objective measure of how film responds to light intensity, and it excels at that.

There's a reason Adams wrote separate books for the negative and the print, because they aren't the same! Trying to tie film ISO to the final print is a huge stretch, since so many steps and parameters are involved.

 

9 minutes ago, Ornello said:

There are thousands of confirmations of this!

I see none. Just personal preferences at best, old wives' tails and parroted misinformation at worst.

[Ornello]

22 minutes ago, giannis said:

You have to elaborate on that. Optimum for whom? With what criteria? Printed on what grade paper? Glossy or matte? Condenser or diffusor head? Toned or not?

Not at all! ISO is supposed to give an objective description of how film responds to a given amount of light. What you do with that response and how much exposure you decide to give the film is your own decision: maybe you want to prioritise shadows, maybe highlights, maybe both and you plan to pull, etc etc. .ISO has nothing to do with that, it's an objective measure of how film responds to light intensity, and it excels at that.

There's a reason Adams wrote separate books for the negative and the print, because they aren't the same! Trying to tie film ISO to the final print is a huge stretch, since so many steps and parameters are involved.

 

I see none. Just personal preferences at best, old wives' tails and parroted misinformation at worst.

Hogwash. Look around at people on the internet, and you will find thousands of examples (of those who have bothered) to run such tests. If your meter gives you perfectly exposed Kodachromes, but your Tri-X has weak shadows, the ISO standard for B&W films is wrong. There is no question about it. The research into ASA speeds done in the 1940s etc. showed prints to observers, and that was used to formulate the recommendations. How is that different from what your describe as 'anecdotal'? If you meter a grey card, and the negative is too thin because of underexposure, then the standard is wrong.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bl%3Back+white+film+speed+testing+1%2F2&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS977US977&ei=p4wOYq7uLJ7ZytMPqMCd4AY&ved=0ahUKEwju3emNqIf2AhWerHIEHShgB2wQ4dUDCA8&oq=bl%3Back+white+film+speed+testing+1%2F2&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAw6BQgAEKIESgQIQRgASgQIRhgAUABY5BRglCpoAHABeACAAYMBiAH6CZIBAzguNZgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

This thread discusses my analysis of the ASA speed change:

 

Edited February 17, 2022 by Ornello

[giannis]

1 minute ago, Ornello said:

If your meter gives you perfectly exposed Kodachromes, but your Tri-X has weak shadows, the ISO standard for B&W films is wrong.

I've never had this issue. And why would I? ISO uses the same methodology across B&W and colour film, only spread across 3 HD curves in colour and kinda "averaged".

This "weak" thing sounds like someone just wants more shadow detail in the B&W shots - out of preference or different perception of monochrome vs colour - and this causes them to misinterpret the B&W film as being "weak" in the shadows. What does "weak" even mean in densities? Cause everything other than densitometric data is just subjective preferences and handwaving.

Again, to reiterate, "ISO doubling" is not a "blunder" or a "scandal". The speed always existed, but was understated because people - especially amateurs - lacked both the equipment and the technical knowledge of later years so they were more error prone, which "forced" Kodak to be much more cautious with their speed ratings and understate them. A customer with slight brighter prints with great shadow detail is a much happier camper than a customer with dark and grainy prints with crushed shadows.

 

11 minutes ago, Ornello said:

How is that different from what your describe?

I don't understand your question. What is/isn't different?

As I said, I have my personal ISOs based on using the developers I like, the type of prints I like, and the easiest, most hassle free way to get there with my equipment (meter, enlarger).

Namely, I like thick and flat negatives which lots of shadow detail, because this allows me the most flexibility in printing wrt to contrast filtering, split contrast etc., and the extra density allows for longer printing times which makes dodging and burning easier. This allows me to get the widest variety of looks in the final print with the least effort. As a side effect, it allows me to be more sloppy and "quicker" with even a rudimentary meter on older cameras, and still get a good result without ruining the negative or fumbling with the camera dials to nail a perfect exposure and in the meantime missing the shot. That's my workflow and the reasons I shoot at the EIs I shoot. But that's just me and I would never imply that my personal exposure indices are the "true ISO" or that the box ISO is wrong, because that's simply not the case (barring very few exceptions).

[Ornello]

3 minutes ago, giannis said:

I've never had this issue. And why would I? ISO uses the same methodology across B&W and colour film, only spread across 3 HD curves in colour and kinda "averaged".

This "weak" thing sounds like someone just wants more shadow detail in the B&W shots - out of preference or different perception of monochrome vs colour - and this causes them to misinterpret the B&W film as being "weak" in the shadows. What does "weak" even mean in densities? Cause everything other than densitometric data is just subjective preferences and handwaving.

Again, to reiterate, "ISO doubling" is not a "blunder" or a "scandal". The speed always existed, but was understated because people - especially amateurs - lacked both the equipment and the technical knowledge of later years so they were more error prone, which "forced" Kodak to be much more cautious with their speed ratings and understate them. A customer with slight brighter prints with great shadow detail is a much happier camper than a customer with dark and grainy prints with crushed shadows.

 

I don't understand your question. What is/isn't different?

As I said, I have my personal ISOs based on using the developers I like, the type of prints I like, and the easiest, most hassle free way to get there with my equipment (meter, enlarger).

Namely, I like thick and flat negatives which lots of shadow detail, because this allows me the most flexibility in printing wrt to contrast filtering, split contrast etc., and the extra density allows for longer printing times which makes dodging and burning easier. This allows me to get the widest variety of looks in the final print with the least effort. As a side effect, it allows me to be more sloppy and "quicker" with even a rudimentary meter on older cameras, and still get a good result without ruining the negative or fumbling with the camera dials to nail a perfect exposure and in the meantime missing the shot. That's my workflow and the reasons I shoot at the EIs I shoot. But that's just me and I would never imply that my personal exposure indices are the "true ISO" or that the box ISO is wrong, because that's simply not the case (barring very few exceptions).

If 98% of photographers who do these tests find that they prefer one stop more exposure, would you concede? I like the same kind of negatives that you do, for the same reasons you do.

Edited February 17, 2022 by Ornello

[giannis]

9 minutes ago, Ornello said:

If 98% of photographers who do these tests find that they prefer one stop more exposure, would you concede? I like the same kind of negatives that you do.

I don't think there's anything to concede.

I'm just saying we should keep some neutrality and objectivity when it comes to one of the very few things that is objective in film photography, like ISO.

From that point onwards, you're free to give anyone some advice, as I do too, like "ok try this film a bit overexposed you might prefer it like that" or "if you're using an old camera with an averaging meter, set your ISO dial 2/3rds of a stop lower just in case the meter gets tricked by some tricky lighting", etc. . That's fine and I do it as well. But I do believe people should start from box iso, general purpose dev and normal development, just to have an objective reference. And then build from there. If people start all over the place, with some using say ISO 200 for TriX as "true speed" because they like best the long tonal scale prints, others using ISO 1600 as the "true ISO" because they like contrasty and gritty prints best, and everybody goes around touting a different value as "true", then no meaningful discussion can be had.

Edited February 17, 2022 by giannis
typo

[Ornello]

1 hour ago, giannis said:

I don't think there's anything to concede.

I'm just saying we should keep some neutrality and objectivity when it comes to one of the very few things that is objective in film photography, like ISO.

From that point onwards, you're free to give anyone some advice, as I do too, like "ok try this film a bit overexposed you might prefer it like that" or "if you're using an old camera with an averaging meter, set your ISO dial 2/3rds of a stop lower just in case the meter gets tricked by some tricky lighting", etc. . That's fine and I do it as well. But I do believe people should start from box iso, general purpose dev and normal development, just to have an objective reference. And then build from there. If people start all over the place, with some using say ISO 200 for TriX as "true speed" because they like best the long tonal scale prints, others using ISO 1600 as the "true ISO" because they like contrasty and gritty prints best, and everybody goes around touting a different value as "true", then no meaningful discussion can be had.

ISO is 'objective', but wrong. It's like the drunk who lost his keys in the alley but came to look for them under the lamppost in the street, because that's where the light was. The original ASA speeds were based on research to find the way to get the best-looking prints (by consensus). If the conditions that led them to change the speeds in 1960 (basically double) no longer obtain (and no longer give optimum results), then the new speeds are wrong. 

If the ISO speeds for colour negative and transparency films give good exposures, but the ISO speeds for B&W films do not (with the same equipment and metering), then the ISO speed methodology for B&W films is wrong. It's that simple.

One other point is that modern lenses have more 'contrast' (due to better coatings) than the lenses of the 1950s. This means that there is less flare, which tends to send less light into the shadows. Thus, more exposure must be given to offset that lack of flare, to bring the shadows up. How much? It depends on the lens in question. I do remember when I got my Leicaflex equipment in the early 1970s, I could see the difference between my 50mm Summilux and the Nikkor 1.4 that I had used before. The shadows were darker and the images in general were snappier.

https://axispraxis.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/the-streetlight-effect-a-metaphor-for-knowledge-and-ignorance/

Edited February 17, 2022 by Ornello

[250swb]

3 hours ago, giannis said:

I don't think there's anything to concede.

I'm just saying we should keep some neutrality and objectivity when it comes to one of the very few things that is objective in film photography, like ISO.

From that point onwards, you're free to give anyone some advice, as I do too, like "ok try this film a bit overexposed you might prefer it like that" or "if you're using an old camera with an averaging meter, set your ISO dial 2/3rds of a stop lower just in case the meter gets tricked by some tricky lighting", etc. . That's fine and I do it as well. But I do believe people should start from box iso, general purpose dev and normal development, just to have an objective reference. And then build from there. If people start all over the place, with some using say ISO 200 for TriX as "true speed" because they like best the long tonal scale prints, others using ISO 1600 as the "true ISO" because they like contrasty and gritty prints best, and everybody goes around touting a different value as "true", then no meaningful discussion can be had.

I agree, but you will never deal with a troll who is dealing in absolute values. You go out with your camera and you have the 'wrong' film for the situation you find, you compensate for it and a troll will tell you it's all wrong. There is nothing to win against an extremist mentality other than ignore it. And unfortunately nobody discovers anything about anything as the troll degenerates the thread into a pile of poop.

Edited February 17, 2022 by 250swb

[Ornello]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

I agree, but you will never deal with a troll who is dealing in absolute values. You go out with your camera and you have the 'wrong' film for the situation you find, you compensate for it and a troll will tell you it's all wrong. There is nothing to win against an extremist mentality other than ignore it. And unfortunately nobody discovers anything about anything as the troll degenerates the thread into a pile of poop.

I suppose anything I say you will contradict. Is that so? I have taken thousands of rolls of film in my life, and I have learned from all the errors I have made along the way. I have mixed my own developers, used Amidol, all the rest. Been there, done that. It was in 1974 or so that I realized giving more exposure made my B&W look better. I thought at the time that I was metering wrong. Later on, I read on the 'internets' that other people were having similar experiences. That is one thing the internets have helped with. Unfortunately, anyone (like Johnny Martyr) can get a web site and proclaim that he sells scads of wedding and social event photos taken using super-speed films, and chastises others who find this quite annoying, because the photos look...well judge for yourselves. I have met many such young photographers who know just enough to be dangerous.

Tomorrow I'll post some test photos taken on the Ilford and Kodak '3200' films, and you can see how good they can look.

 

[Ornello]

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!

[Ornello]

This is a print from Delta 3200, scanned on an office scanner. The scanning process seems to exaggerate the grain; in direct viewing, in looks better. The lines in the sky are from the scanner glass. I had to reduce the file size to get it on the system, so the resolution is poor.

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!

Edited February 18, 2022 by Ornello

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ornello]

This is a print from T-Max 3200, scanned on an office scanner. The scanning process seems to exaggerate the grain; in direct viewing, in looks better. The lines in the sky are from the scanner glass.

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!