On Oct 31, 1:10 am, "Richard Knoppow" <dickb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumcommit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:1193789673.988102.270170@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > On Oct 29, 10:35 pm, "Richard Knoppow"
> > <dickb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Richard:
>
> > It is easy to see the differences in shadow and highlight
> > contrast in
> > Tri-X vs TMY, when developed for similar overall contrast,
> > in
> > negatives taken in the same illumination at the same time
> > of the same
> > subject matter . In Tri-X Pan, the shadows have more
> > contrast and the
> > highlights have less. If you would take the trouble to do
> > this sort of
> > test you will see it quite clearly.
>
> Well, I have used both films but haven't actually
> exposed a roll of each to the same targets in the same
> camera. I also have some favorite test subjects including a
> row of houses across the street. I probably have a hundred
> pictures of these from my front yard. I will have to get a
> fresh roll of the two films and try this. My usual developer
> is D-76 diluted 1:1. This is included in the charts for both
> films and should work well with them. I don't know when I
> will be able to get to this, I guess I will just have to
> make the time. The problem is that unless one is shooting
> sheet film one is required to sacrifice most of two rolls of
> fairly expensive film in order to shoot the subject at
> nearly the same time in the same camera. I guess I could
> bracket and use up more film plus compare the tone rendition
> for several exposures.
>
> --
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
that's what I have done. I have shot several rolls of each film,
adjusting developing times to give similar overall contrast with each
film. It's expensive and time-consuming, but teh developing times
given by manufacturers are often excessive and inconsistent.
|
