"UC" <uraniumcommittee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1192631840.189178.51850@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
These two curves are quite interesting. Both films have a
long straight line ****tion for the degree of contrast
normally used. What I find curious is that the Tri-X curve
indicates its slightly faster than T-Max 400, this may be an
artifact of the measurement. If the exposures are started at
equivalent contrast points on the toe the curves are not so
much different. I am surprized that Tri-X is capable of a
density of log 3.0, this is very high. T-Max films are known
for their ability to produce very high densities so that is
no surprize. This is much higher than is generally used for
negatives where a density of around 1.2 is about the
maximum. Both of these films appear to have enormous
overexposure latitude.
In fact, the T-Max curve does appear to be slightly
upward deflected. However, this seems to vary with the
degree of development. If you lay a transparent straight
edge on the curves you will see what I mean.
My experience with T-Max 400 and the newer 400T-Max is
that it does not seem to have the kind of tone rendition I
would expect from a very long toe film. I use it both
indoors and outdoors and largely for ****traiture where it
gives me a kind of "glowing" skin rendition that I happen to
like very much. It must have reasonable toe contrast because
I get the same desirable skin rendition on pictures of
people with black skin. I don't know why you have problems
with it outdoors but would have to see examples of the work
to be sure. You might be right but word descriptions of
images don't tell much and scanned images have to many
variables involved.
Its clear from Kodak's literature than the kind of
developer can have a significant effect on the curve shape
of film, especially toe contrast. It might be useful to you
to try 400T-Max in some other developer than you are using.
I've been using D-76 or D-76 1:1 (to get longer development
times) with good results.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
