A few films have different curves. As you know, TMY-2 has a longer straight line than most current films, extending well further into the highlights. Acros is also like that. Then, as you also know, there is classic TXP which has a longer toe and relatively “upswept” curve.
But some other general purpose films do not differ much at all when it comes to “native” (your term) curves/tonality. The question you ask why bother marketing them if they are the same is a non starter. They are being sold by different companies, that’s why. They are competitive products.
Now, this is not to say there are no differences. They do differ in image structure characteristics - most noticeably graininess. However since we are talking large format, that’s a non issue unless one is making really big prints.
Different films may (or may not) also behave differently in terms of curve shape when processing with more exotic developers.
Delta 100 would be my less than ideal substitute for TMX100 if Kodak Alaris ever does take a final nose dive. It's spectral sensitivity is different, and long exposure curves with respect to deep contrast filters veer off quite a bit, unlike TMX100. I've experimented quite a bit regarding the pro and cons, mostly with respect to roll film applications. Once LF sizes are involved there are more options because such fine grain is no longer a priority. I distinctly prefer TMY400 to either TMX or Delta in sheet film sizes. FP4 is OK when things aren't blowing around - I rate it at 50 except in softer light. In other words, I sure hope Kodak stays around, but if it doesn't, I've got a workable Plan B.
Answer: As thick as a brick.
Question: In what way is my head and my negatives alike.
I usually just hope I have enough sheets of a film and keep good enough notes, so that if I blow the first few sheets, I have enough of the same to carry on and do it properly. A view on a light table says a lot, but the proof in is the printing. Rich beefy detailed shadows with small clear areas on the neg. Probably a stop 'overexposed' by some people's preferences.
Long exposure times for the prints, of course -- processes that create a printing-out image (such the image one sees after pulling the neg off one's cyanotype) can benefit from longer printing times. In any case, I get the shadows on the negative that works well with my processes and vision. The DR of the negs range about from 2.5 to 3.0. Whatever works.
Edited to add -- all this just means I expose and develop to match my 'normal' printing process.
Last edited by Vaughn; 20-Dec-2020 at 14:04.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
I do my development outside in a lab - "normal development". I don't use the zone system although the lab could pull and push if I ask. I expose so the picture fits into the range per my metering. I might add a grad ND filter for too bright skies. I then scan and keep the image in the middle of the histogram range by setting the black and white points just past the histogram range for each image. Then I adjust final exposure, contrast, curves, etc in Lightroom to satisfy my eyes.
Any recommendations?
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
That’s what I do as well, I scan at 48bit (color)/16 bit (b&w), which gives you plenty of latitude for adjusting later provided you don’t clip anything.
In terms of post-processing you have it exactly right, I also add localized dodge/burn as needed (sometimes nothing). Depending on taste you can also add/remove vignetting, a digital ND filter (gradations), etc.
And then the clone tool to get rid of dust and other artifacts!
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Doremus or anyone else who wants to jump in. Let's take your point one step further. I want to see if I can use your calculation methods whether zone system or other, to apply to my exposure settings and scanning to make it better and more consistent. A little challenge of thinking out of your usual box.
So when I shoot for "normal" development in a lab, I try to capture in the negative the full range in the exposure, if possible, from black blacks to white whites. As long as I can do that, then I can handle whatever I want to do in post-processing after scanning. The "pushing" and "pulling" occur then.
So if you were scanning and printing digitally rather than chemically, what adjustments would you do to your capture exposure settings to accomplish it to have the best negative to work with?
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
Bookmarks