Bob,
Thanks, I'm glad you chimed in. I'll give Hp5 another try in 5x7 before deciding on which film I'll order from Ilford for my Whole Plate size. BTW I make contact prints only.
I'm also planning to add more light.
Bob,
Thanks, I'm glad you chimed in. I'll give Hp5 another try in 5x7 before deciding on which film I'll order from Ilford for my Whole Plate size. BTW I make contact prints only.
I'm also planning to add more light.
In theory, possibly. In reality, it's going to be hugely expensive to get filters made that accurately match the transmission & absorbance wavelengths of the sensitising & acutance dyes of specific films. The light loss would probably be drastic too. If it was possible in reality, the manufacturers would have done it a long time ago - making one film that does it all when correctly filtered would be far more profitable than making many films to handle differences in taste & needs.Originally Posted by Pere Casals
Its a great film, I use it , FP4 pretty much exclusively and a lot of my client use it as well. The extra speed you get and the incredible tonal range one can squeeze out with good enlarger practice is limitless.
5 x7 would be a perfect size for this film, be comfortable knowing you are in company with many others using this film.
Well, a custom interference filter would be very expensive, but an absortion filter would be very easy to make, just take a dozen of anilines and let MATLAB play with their spectrums to find an optimal combination of dyes for a close match.
But this is irrelevant, just I was pointing is that for portrait we may want a certain "spectral" effect, and this concerns more the filtration we use than the native spectral sensitivity the film we use film has.
I found interesting the spectrums of Hoya Portrait and Intensifier filters...
Kodak was attempting to replace several films with just one new superior category. What TMax didn't replace was Plus-X which was popular in portrait and fashion shoots for its "all toe" feature in sheet version. But if you think about it, what I just explained about the tricolor response of TMAX, it means they could also replace Ortho film popular for rugged ole men portraiture with something highly predictable with deep green filtration. How much of this film versatility was ever communicated to end users if a different question, but a first they did try to do this in special tech articles, some of which were never actually tested!
Drew,
IMHO that then new film generation aimed a number of targets.
> Very, very fine grain for 135mm usage
> Extra resolving power also mostly useful for 135 format
> Less silver content
> A very linear curve oriented to work well with VC papers flexibility.
We have to remember that before Variable Contrast paper mass popularization in the very early 1980s (if was invented before WWII) a good way to do things it was using film toe and shoulder to compress shadows and highlights, and to leave the desired range for the mids.
VC introduced an amazing degree of flexibility in the printing process, so for example it was possible to burn certain areas of the print with a different contrast grade than the general exposure.
IMHO this was leading to the trend of capturing everything linear and then using VC flexibility to get the wanted result.
But then it happened that tabular also had drawbacks...
It was also when dye transfer printing was still "officially" alive for Kodak, so they needed a color separation film to replace Super-XX etc. But Kodak was already getting fickle about their own line of b&w printing papers. Too many divisions too juggle at once I guess, the right hand not knowing what the left was doing. But portraiture was one of the key markets Kodak oriented TMax to. Lots of photographers predictably whined or got the wrong impression when John Sexton was contracted to promote TMAX and did landscape work with it. They contracted studio names too, but it turned out to be a more stubborn market, esp given the fact TMax needs fussier exp and dev.
My experience with TMY versus HP5+:
a) TMY has better reciprocity characteristics,
b) TMY is faster in my system,
c) TMY has finer grain,
d) TMY is much better for expansion development.
None of that is to say the HP5+ isn't a fine film. It is.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Plus +1
Two totally different palates..tmy400 is probably the best all around film ever made..and it's not hard to develop..
Not sure why its an HP5 vs TMY comparison. Wouldn't the fairer comparison be with Delta 400?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks