faster films with same quality as older slower ones are not something new and not something just hypothetical. And when you get a faster film with same or better quality as old slow one it isnt a "six of one/half dozen of other" situation. The faster speed is going to be huge advantage the vast majority of the time while the old slower one will be an advantage very seldom IMHO. JCO
-----Original Message----- From: D. Glenn Arthur Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 3:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: B&W developers and Tri-x ?? J. C. O'Connell wrote: > If you recall this discussion started because Kodak recently claimed > that their newer technology film TMAX 400, offered same image quality > at 3 times the speed > as their old one PLUS-X. SAME QUALITY, but faster speed. That is not a > hypothetical, And as you in turn may or may not recall, that point got an immediate reaction from people who had used both films, pointing out that even if the *numbers* look the same, the *look* of the images produced is different because of the shape of the grain. So _they're_not_interchangeable_ on the attributes other than speed! So the stated scenario -- two films that differ only in speed -- is still only hypothetical. > Secondly are you claiming the more than 2-3 times you wish you had a > slower film was because the film you were using was too fast for your > camera's shutter or because the > you wished could have used a slower film to get better quality? Too fast for my shutter at the aperture I wanted to use, or too fast for my sync speed when I wanted to use flash (since I do not yet have a flashbulb holder to plug into the FP socket and a stash of slow-burning bulbs to put in it). There have _also_ been cases where I wished I'd brought finer-image-quality film that would also have been slower, but I was not counting those; I'm only counting the cases where speed itself was the relevant factor. > There is only one advantage to a slower > film compared > to a faster of same quality, SLOWER SHUTTER SPEEDS when needed. But > that is very seldom needed and when not needed it is a actually a > distinct disadvantge. That is the point > I am trying to make. Look, we GET IT. It's not that we fail to understand that; it's that we disagree over the magnitude and significance of the phrase "very seldom". Let me try that again: in my previous message, the one to which you replied, I myself pointed out that yes, there have been more times I've wished for faster film than times I've wished for slower, which should make it clear that I both understand the phenomenon _and_ understand which situation occurs more often. I thought I had also made it clear, attempting to reiterate a point someone else had, I thought, said fairly plainly, that despite the _relative_ infrequency of such situations, some of us do encounter circumstances in which we wish for a slower film often enough to be glad that the slower options exist for speed reasons as well as for image-quality reasons. Not only do we GET YOUR POINT, we've restated your point to make it obvious that we get it and that we're pointing out situations that make your "usually" not the same as "effectively always". As for it being a disadvantage when it's not an advantage, well a great many things fail to be neutral when they're not advantageous. There's a reason I prefer to cary an assortment of different kinds of film, rather than a bag full of just one type. -- Glenn
