On Oct 17, 1:41 am, t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
> In article <1192572696.631861.287...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
>
>
> UC <uraniumcommit...@[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?
I have no idea to what you are referring. I don't make curves. Kodak
and the other firms publishes this information.
> It would settle the debate in your favor -- if those curves you claimed
> you measured actually exist.
Look on the Kodak web site.
T-Max 400:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/sup****t/techPubs/f4016/f002_0507ac.gif
Tri-X
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/sup****t/techPubs/f4017/f009_0490ac.gif
The difference between the slopes in the upper regions and the lower
regions is clear and unmistakable.
|
