Tuesday, February 05, 2002, 9:42:17 PM, Shel wrote: SB> Unless the scans are way off, I think we can get a pretty good idea of SB> what the final results might be like. Your comment is interesting in SB> light of the recent discussion about the size and quality of PUG images, SB> in which numerous people (including you, I believe) suggested that the SB> PUG images and scans viewed on a computer screen give a reasonable SB> enough representation of the final image.
Hi Shel, I for myself wouldn't judge quality of neg from a scan, knowing how much computer manipulation can be done to salvage a bad neg and OTOH how much scanning can ruin a perfect neg. Judging images at PUG is different to judging technical qualities of a film, I think. Here I would have to see a neg. Nevertheless, I will post some of my shots with HP5+ at 3200 on my website (in the evening though, not now when the phone rate is highest), which IMO give good representation of what _can_ be done with the film. Unless one can see and perhaps measure logD of the negs, that's where the comparison ends. SB> don't you feel that the quality of any photograph might suffer when the SB> film is pushed 3 stops, especially when compared to using a faster film SB> at or near its rated ISO? I'll grant you that some film/developer Sorry Shel but that seems wrong to me :). You are comparing apples and oranges, I feel. Comparing HP5+ at 3200 (3 stop push) and D32 at 3200 (1&2/3 stop push). The ISO for the Delta is only 1250, for TMZ it's just 1000. You would have to compare HP5+ pushed to only 1600 when comparing it to Delta32 at 3200. Remember, the 3200 EI of TMZ/D32 is NOT it's "rated ISO", it's already pushed nearly 2 stops at this EI... As you wrote it, it is like comparing a true 400 film (e.g. TX) with 100 (e.g FP4+) film pushed to 400. IMO, all neg characteristic considered (grain, tonality, ...), I like HP5+ pushed two stops, I like it more than TMZ pushed two stops. I even like more HP5+ pushed 3 stops than TMZ pushed two stops (ie both at EI 3200). I shot both at hard lighting situations (concerts with mostly backlighting) and I liked the HP5+ more. And what's better, it has better (smaller and nicer) grain - TMZ pushed to 3200 has ugly grain in faces, like smallpox <g>. (Nick wrote:) N> at 3200 same dev, to finish. Not only that, I swear N> that the grain on the Delta at 3200 is much worse than Not tried Delta, but HP5+ pushed two stops has IMO better grain than TMZ pushed two stops. Much nicer, even smaller. And I developed it in recommended TMAX developer. Of course, your results may vary - there are so many variables so always, I try to test my own. I am happy with HP5+, and I can understand you are happy with the Delta. As long as we both get good results from our choice, that's great, isn't it :) ? Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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 .
