What sheet film pushes the best?

[Bob Eskridge]

Ditto: T-Max 400

[Stephan_6145]

I second the R3. Amazing possibilities with the dedicated developers.

[Donald Qualls]

I've gotten acceptable image quality from TXT (the old sheet film version of what's now 320TXP) that was accidentally exposed through the base, then reproduced the results with the same film intentionally exposed at EI 5000.

I used a developer I cobbled together for the occasion:

Dektol 1:9

HC-110 syrup for Dilution B (taking the Dektol as dilution water)

4 g/L ascorbic acid

2 tsp/L washing soda

Developed for 15 minutes with *vigorous* agitation (shake it like mixing up salad dressing!) every 30 seconds; the film (a couple years past date) shows distinct fog, but prints with approximately normal contrast and has good (not excellent, just good) shadow detail. It might be possible to push the contrast still further by developing longer, which would increase the EI still more, but I wouldn't want to count on it...

Of course, if you're using 4x5, you should also consider a 545 back and Polaroid Type 57, which is rated at ISO 3000 right out of the box. Even better, you can process the prints on the spot and *know* that you did or didn't get the exposure you want...

[Oren Grad]

Any R3 fans out there have a high-EI sample that you could scan and post here?

[mark blackman]

here's a sample of 10x8 R3 film rated at 6400 iso. This is a piece of film 9 mm x 6 mm. This enlargement is approximately 20x the orginal, at 72 dpi. This equates to an enlargement 160" x 200", or around 3 x 4 metres.

http://www.markb.me.uk/r36400small.jpg

[paul stimac]

Thanks everyone... I'm going to try the R3 thanks to Mark's sample. Mark, did you use the Rollie high speed developer?

[mark blackman]

yes, Paul. Don't forget the pre-wash! As I usualy shoot FP4 it's not something I'm used to, and have found out the hard way it must be done.