David G Hall
18-Apr-2002, 18:28
Hey all...
I have been a lifelong user of HP5 but have found myself being tempted by more a nd more films lately. Also, I find myself scanning more and more even though I' m a pretty dedicated PMK user.
So this weekend I had a chance to do a little testing. I went to Monterey with some Bergger, FP4, HP5, TMX, and Delta 100. No Tri-X. I made N, N+1 and N-1 sh ots, processed them all at pretty close to their standard EI's in PMK (I use Ber gger at 100 and FP4 at 100). Then I scanned them, inverted them, desaturated th em and printed them raw in black dot density with no contrast manipulation. I wa nted lowest common denomiator raw. I was testing as much for how the scanner rea ds the film as I was for tonality, grain, acutance, etc.
The results astounded me. I expected differences to be pretty subtle. They were n't:
1) HP5 and FP4 were both the most contrasty with siginificant patches of blown o ut highlights and blocked up shadows. Both looked the most printable when scann ed raw and in need of the least manipulation because the contrast was already so high. Of course FP4 was less grainy and a bit sharper.
2) Delta was not as contrasty but still had blocked up highs and lows. It was mu ch less grainier than FP4.
3) TMX was as contrasty as HP5 but a lot sharper, like Delta. I think edge contr ast was better.
4) Bergger was the most interesting of the bunch. It scanned VERY low contrast and would need the most manipulation of all the films. But it had all possible detail in both highs and lows. With Bergger, the most information passed throug h the scanner BY FAR. It was grainier than HP5 but held the PMK stain so well t hat the PMK edge effect made it look almost as sharp as TMX and Delta. Also, th ere was one shot where I mis-metered terribly and overexposed by two stops. Ber gger actually held quite a bit of highlight detail AND it scanned through. The others scanned as white.
All un-scientific testing, of course. Gordon Hutchings would never approve. Bu t I don't have a densitometer and all I want is a system that produces negatives that are easy to print and easy to scan. So take the info as you need to.
I would love to hear your experience with different films, developers, and scann ers versus enlargers. This is why I love this forum so much!
dgh
I have been a lifelong user of HP5 but have found myself being tempted by more a nd more films lately. Also, I find myself scanning more and more even though I' m a pretty dedicated PMK user.
So this weekend I had a chance to do a little testing. I went to Monterey with some Bergger, FP4, HP5, TMX, and Delta 100. No Tri-X. I made N, N+1 and N-1 sh ots, processed them all at pretty close to their standard EI's in PMK (I use Ber gger at 100 and FP4 at 100). Then I scanned them, inverted them, desaturated th em and printed them raw in black dot density with no contrast manipulation. I wa nted lowest common denomiator raw. I was testing as much for how the scanner rea ds the film as I was for tonality, grain, acutance, etc.
The results astounded me. I expected differences to be pretty subtle. They were n't:
1) HP5 and FP4 were both the most contrasty with siginificant patches of blown o ut highlights and blocked up shadows. Both looked the most printable when scann ed raw and in need of the least manipulation because the contrast was already so high. Of course FP4 was less grainy and a bit sharper.
2) Delta was not as contrasty but still had blocked up highs and lows. It was mu ch less grainier than FP4.
3) TMX was as contrasty as HP5 but a lot sharper, like Delta. I think edge contr ast was better.
4) Bergger was the most interesting of the bunch. It scanned VERY low contrast and would need the most manipulation of all the films. But it had all possible detail in both highs and lows. With Bergger, the most information passed throug h the scanner BY FAR. It was grainier than HP5 but held the PMK stain so well t hat the PMK edge effect made it look almost as sharp as TMX and Delta. Also, th ere was one shot where I mis-metered terribly and overexposed by two stops. Ber gger actually held quite a bit of highlight detail AND it scanned through. The others scanned as white.
All un-scientific testing, of course. Gordon Hutchings would never approve. Bu t I don't have a densitometer and all I want is a system that produces negatives that are easy to print and easy to scan. So take the info as you need to.
I would love to hear your experience with different films, developers, and scann ers versus enlargers. This is why I love this forum so much!
dgh