On Oct 15, 10:26 am, Jean-David Beyer <jeandav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>
> It must be too early today. I meant:
>
> > Because for 4x5, the 4164 Tri-X has the poorest shadow detail I have
ever
> > seen (although the all-toe 4147 PlusX is somewhat similar) unless I
expose
> > it a couple of stops more than I should (as measured by testing the
exposure
> > to get net density of 0.1 for Zone I exposures) to get the lower zones
off
> > the extremely long toe of the film. Shooting Tri-X at EI 80 to 100
just does
> > not make sense. With the short toe of TMY, I get much more shadow
contrast
> > unless I accidentally underexpose.
>
> etc.
>
> --
> .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
> /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
> /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
> ^^-^^ 10:25:01 up 8 days, 18:01, 1 user, load average: 4.37, 4.31, 4.34
On Oct 15, 10:15 am, Jean-David Beyer <jeandav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> UC wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 6:43 pm, Jean-David Beyer <jeandav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> UC wrote:
>
> >>> You don't want a straight curve for outdoor work. You want an
S-shaped
> >>> curve, such as that of Tri-X or HP5 or Neopan 400.
> >> OK, that is one reason for our different results: I do want a
straight line
> >> curve for all my work.
>
> > Why? What kind of work do you do? If you do outdoor work with lots of
> > sky and clouds, you're better off with a film like Tri-X pan, which
> > has softer highlights and contrastier shadows. It helps offset flare
> > int he shadows and helps keep the sky from going too light.
>
> Because for 4x5, the 4164 Tri-X has the poorest shadow detail I have
ever
> seen (although the all-toe 4147 PlusX is somewhat similar) unless I
expose
> it a couple of stops more than I should (as measured by testing the
exposure
> to get net density of 0.1 for Zone I exposures) to get the lower zones
of
> the extremely long toe of the film. Shooting Tri-X at EI 80 to 100 just
does
> not make sense. With the short toe of TMY, I get much more shadow
contrast
> unless I accidentally overexpose.
That film was made for studio work. If you work outdoors (you still
have not said) you would be better off with a 'press' type film, such
as Royal Pan (unfortunately discontinued) or HP5 Plus or perhaps Fuji
Neopan 400. There is no reason the name 'Tri-X' should be applied to
such completely different materials.
> As far as highlight contrast is concerned, a slight reduction in
development
> time usually handles it (although, more often I either burn them in or
use a
> lower grade for the paper).
But that lowers overall contrast, not just highlight contrast. It
doesn't negate the weakness of this film (TMY).
> I do not get all that much flare in the shadows because when there is
risk
> of flare, I shade the lens with either a lens shade, or the darkslide
from
> the film holder.
When the image contains sky, there is flare from that area because
it's brighter than the foreground.
> My Wisner Convertible Plasmat lens set has optically coated
> elements and has reasonably low flare (not measured). I get more flare
with
> my uncoated Meyer Gorlitz, which I seldom use anymore. The Schneider
> SuperAngulon 90mm f/8.
|
