1st, sorry that I am sending this to list. But I had persistent problems
getting tru Gianfranco's mailserver anti-spam filter <g>, so this is my
last option. Again, I am very sorry.
*****
****
***
**
*
Message for Gianfranco follows:
Hi Gianfranco!
I had an error regarding your anti-spam filter (or whatever it is). I am
trying again. Hopefully it will get tru.
Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it out on a "test" roll of TMY I bought
for just this occassion and exposed at similar place (ie a contrasty
lighting, ala concert). I tried both Xtol 1+1 and Microphen (stock). The
times written on Xtol package and kodak's web are grossly inadequate IMO.
The ID-11 times for Xtol are propably good start, from my own experience
too. I just can't understand why Kodak did such a mistake here - as I see
it in my negs (earlier, TMY at 1600), their own times for pushing TMY in
XTOL 2 stops give me just 1 stop push, with both shadows and highlights
lacking. HP5+ at 1600 is much better IMO, except maybe the grain. Instead
of Kodak's times for pushing TMY, I used the "general" times for pushing in
compensating developers from Massive dev chart site. That's 2.5x for
push-3, 1.8x for push-2 and 1.4x for push-1 instead of feeble 1x for
push-1, 1.333x for push-2 and 1.666x for push-3 they say for Tmax films.
So I developed the test roll in Microphen (my favourite), for 2.5x the
base time, that's about 18 minutes. It came out, there is something, but
the shadows are virtually non-existent (but still much better than with
Xtol). I think it will have to do, though, as the lack of shadows is IMO
the error of the film, not developer. MPH is speed increasing enough, and I
can get MUCH better 3200 pushed film from HP5+ than TMY in MPH. My only
hope is that I did another error when shooting the original TMY (as TMZ).
That I overexposed it, so there would be some shadow detail, and I could
use softer grade to bring highlights back. It's my only hope.
Now I know: never keep TMY & TMZ in the same bag !!!
BTW, how do you like the SS 100 at 100 iso? I have not tried much TMX, as I
prefer traditional films (It's a pity they discontinued Agfa APX 25, twas
great in Rodinal. At least EFKE still produces their 25 iso pan film)
BTW2, where did you get the Ilford chart with times for TMY pushed? I
couldn't find anything. All my Ilford documents have push times only for
their own films, and all other films they have data only for base iso
exposure.
Thanks!
Frantisek
At 00:27 5.3.2001 MET, you wrote:
>Hi Frantisek,
>I've made a similar mistake not long ago: I've exposed a Fuji Neopan SS
100 at
>800... Someone on the list (William Robb, I think) suggested to use the
>Acufine. I have instead developed the roll in Microphen (13' at 21°C,
>agitation 10" every 60") and the results were really fine (first time for me
>with Microphen, I usually use D-76 and T-Max). I've developed at the same
time
>(in the same tank, for 11' only) a roll of HP5+ exposed at 1600. It came out
>very well, so I think that developing the TMY at 3200 in Microphen should
>cause no problem. You only have to calculate the right developing time.
>Try:
>http://www.digitaltruth.com/photo/chart/tables/tmx400.html
>
>It seems reliable, although it displays the wrong times for the Xtol :(
>I usually apply for the Xtol the same times of the D-76, with nice results.
>I have an Ilford dev chart that shows 15' at 20°C for TMY at 3200 in ID11;
>while it shows the times for the TMY in Microphen only up to 1600, but they
>are almost the same (7' at 400 both the developers; 8 ID11 /9:30 Microphen at
>800; 12' at 1600 both), so I guess that 15' at 20°C in Microphen stock
>solution should be the way to go.
>Hope this helps.
>
>Gianfranco
>
>PS: let me know about the results!
>
-
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 .
