In article <1192572696.631861.287410@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
UC <uraniumcommittee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Oct 16, 5:50 pm, "Richard Knoppow" <dickb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> pretty accurate. Tone rendition from the films tends to
>> confirm the curves. T-Max has a quite short toe and a very
>> long and quite straight mid ****tion so its shadow contrast
>> should be fairly high. My photos on it tend to show this.
>
>In recent tests (performed in 2005) the TMY characteristic was clearly
>evident. Highlights had more contrast and shadows less contrast than
>Tri-X, Neopan 400, and HP5 Plus. It was clear as could be. The films
>were exposed and developed to yield similar overall contrast and
>printed on Ilford Multigrade paper with the same filtration.
>Developers were Paterson FX-39 and Acutol. TMY is clearly different
>from other ISO 400 films. Side-by-side comparisons of identical
>subject matter are perhaps the best way to see these differences.
>
>there is no doubt whatsoever of the results, which were consistent
>with previous experience with these materials.
I'm sure you'll just respond with more insults (though you seem to
have learned your lesson about insulting Richard, which just makes
you seem particularly foolish and rude) but why don't you simply
post the curves your original message on this topic said you had?
It would settle the debate in your favor -- if those curves you claimed
you measured actually exist.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon
tls@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky
|
