Thanks, I'll try this, for portraits. I would do 35mm bracktings with this process before exposing sheets.Originally Posted by Neal Chaves
Thanks, I'll try this, for portraits. I would do 35mm bracktings with this process before exposing sheets.
The slight increase in film speed with Xtol is a plus. I'm not interested in using a faster film that has to be used slower. I find myself fighting reciprocity failure all the time so the fact that I can shoot HP5+ at box speed if I develop in Xtol is good.
I have done some careful side-by-side comparisons, but I'm hesitant to comment on which one developer produces tonally better negatives. The only thing I'm comfortable saying at this point is that both the Xtol and HC-110 negs camera scanned well, in the sense that I was able to create digital files with excellent resolution and sharpness, good detail in shadows, midtones and highlights, and minimal appearance of grain.
To complicate matters some more, I've been reading about TMAX 400 (TMY-2) and am going to try it out primarily because of the vastly superior reciprocity characteristics. Lots of people think TMY-2 does very well in Xtol. For my purposes, not having to worry about reciprocity failure until exposures of multiple seconds would be a big plus. It's way more expensive than HP5+, unfortunately, but the extra cost might be worth it.
I've used HP5 extensively and for several years with Xtol. Excellent combination. I agree with the catagories, except the shadows... I always got full, luminous shadows. EI 200 and Bob's your uncle.
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/andy8x10
Flickr Site: https://www.flickr.com/photos/62974341@N02/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/andrew.oneill.artist/
IMHO not that worth... if you are using HP5+ / Xtol yet then what is worth is learning how to shot HP5+ at night (with LIRF)... not that difficult...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592...posted-public/
Well, for rolls (35mm and 120) it's similar price Ilford than Kodak, but amazingly for sheets tmy looks extremly difficult to manufacture, perhaps requiring aerospace grade ingredients... so price is doubled from expected.
Pere, for me it would be worth it to not have to deal with extremely long exposures due to reciprocity failure. According to Ilford's new recommendations, you apply a factor of t^1.31 starting at 1 second. I'm very often shooting at more than 1 second, so long times rapidly become problematic when there's the possibility of movement. This is better than the old recommendation. Under the old recommendation, a calculated 10 second exposure became 30 seconds. With their new recommendation, it's reduced to 20.4 seconds -- but that's still a long time. In contrast, according to Kodak 10 seconds calculated exposure time using TMY-2 calls for just +1/3 stop addition. For me, that's a useful improvement.
Ok, but what subject requiring 10 seconds exposure won't move in 12 seconds but it will move in 20s?
Anyway situation is way better now, kodak prices for sheet film are closer to ilford than it was for sheets, recently there was a 100% overprice in kodak BW sheets, that situation was simply infame.
I hope they fired that marketing officer. I also hope their new policy would be rewarding for them in the long term.
It's mostly my dog. I've trained her to hold her breath and stay perfectly still for 10 seconds, but she can't for 20!
Nice discussion, but I'm still waiting for an explanation of "shadbelly."
Peter Collins
On the intent of the First Amendment: The press was to serve the governed, not the governors --Opinion, Hugo Black, Judge, Supreme Court, 1971 re the "Pentagon Papers."
it had to be something like thatIt's mostly my dog. I've trained her to hold her breath and stay perfectly still for 10 seconds, but she can't for 20!
This is my next guess on the shadbelly question:
It actually has a kind of curvy belly. If that's what your characteristic curve is doing, I can see why you wouldn't be happy about your highlights!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks