A scroll of mail from Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sat,
27 Jan 2001 10:21:28 -0800
Read it? y
>Your comments are appreciated, but perhaps you can flesh them
>out a bit more. Which developer(s) did you use when processing
>these films? What time/temp/dilutions did you use, and what
>agitation cycle and pattern did you use? What does "grainy as
>hell" mean?
Shel,
My experience with both films is limited to shooting it as I don't do
my own developing. I've just found that Neopan to be rather grainy
when shot at 1600, but much improved when at 1250. I hand it to a
pro-lab and get it developed as normal, however they do that. I use
the same pro-lab for all B&W film, so I guess the development is
consistent.
Neopan at 1600 is less grainy than TMAX at 3200. I've found TMAX to
be intrusively grainy - the first thought when looking at the picture
would be "what a lot of grain". Maybe it's just the type of grain or
the appearance, but the pictures seem to be dominated by the grain to
my eye.
I've pushed Tri-X to 1600 and had very pleasing results, although I
think the grain is just better looking.
Of course it could be that I've learned to meter better in these
situations (usually concerts in dark auditoria) and the more recent
stuff is better exposed.
I've had very nice results from pushing T400CN to 1600 and even to
3200 which have been, to my eye at least, less grainy.
I prefer to use Neopan as it seems to have more punch or T400CN for
the convenience.
To sum up, I've shot a little of both films mentioned and found them
both to be grainy at box speeds and that the neopan improves with (at
least) a one-third stop overexposure. I haven't done the same test
with TMAX as I haven't shot any recently.
dave
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
