jimkramer wrote:
> "Doug Jewell" <ask@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:47e4c9ce$0$6827$5a62ac22@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> jimkramer wrote:
>>> This was Buzz's first real time out on water; he did pretty well, I
wish
>>> I could say the same for Neopan 1600...
>>>
>>> http://www.jlkramer.net/Pictures/Puppy/BuzzOnNeopan.htm
>>>
>>> Jim
>> Nice. Not sure why you say "I wish I could say the same for the Neopan
>> 1600". Hard to tell based on internet sized crops, but it looks to me
that
>> it has still maintained plenty of detail, and done a pretty good job of
>> holding shadow and highlight detail. Can't say that I'd be confident of
>> getting a result this good from any other similar speed B&W film, or by
>> pu****ng a lower speed film.
>> Out of curiosity - what developer and time? I assume these are scans of
>> the negs (frontier?) - the grain looks different to what you get when
you
>> scan a print.
>
> The original scans were done with a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> in 16 bit grayscale.
>
> In order, the crops you see were downsized sized
> 3.1:1
> 3.5:1
> 3.3:1
> 2.5:1
> 3.3:1
>
> Both Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200, shot at 1600, in my opinion, would have
> resolved better detail and maintained a wider latitude, These were
> comparable to HP5+ 400 pushed 2 stops. My personal experience is that
the
> HP5+ would have not held the blacks as well, but there would be more
detail
> in the highlights.
>
> Developed in D-76 at the recommended time.
Hmmm... I wonder if development is the issue here. I
normally use Ilford LC29. I agree that HP5 pushed would give
more highlight but not hold the blacks as well. IME pushed
HP5 is grainier than Neopan1600 too. IME TMZ3200 has very
soft contrast, and doesn't hold fine detail in the golf-ball
sized grain (which is one thing I love about TMZ - but you
have to pick the right subject). Haven't given Delta a go,
so not sure what it is like.
I'll see if I can dig out some of my Neopan 1600 shots and
post a link to compare with.
>
> I admit this was my first roll of Neopan 1600 and that I have 3 more
rolls
> to shoot before they "expire" in August. I intentionally shot this as a
> test roll and shot in as varied conditions as I could, but across the
board
> I was somewhat disappointed with the results. But I now understand why
Fuji
> doesn't make a 3200 speed film. :-)
I've mainly used Neopan 1600 indoors at night. For that sort
of thing I was very impressed with it's candid ****trait
ability - definitely better than pushed HP5. I like TMZ for
high-key classical ****traits because of the look the grain
gives. Printed on low-contrast paper I've got some gorgeous
results from TMZ. But then I guess it's all in your
personal preference.
>
> There is a full sized scan under the Eno River post I did not too long
ago
> if you want to see a full sized scan. There is an index page under
> "contact" in link above.
>
> Jim
>
>
|
