Hi Bill,
> Bernd M=F6ller
>
> Bernd, (yes, that's how your last name appears on the digest)
Thanks. I don't read the digest, but I am quite aware that the umlaut in my
last name (an o with two dots on top) causes problems. I might have to change
my real name and signature to Moeller.
> Pushed Tri-X is an old standby, but I would suggest you compare it with
> Ilford Delta 3200 and Fuji Neopan 1600. These are much newer films, and may
> be an improvement. Then again, they may not, as I understand that their
> actual speeds are more in the area of 800, and the recommended development
> times are actually a push. I'm not sure I understand this.
I did not hear of this before. I'll have to check more. I've been recommended
Tri-X because of it's distinct look and the foregiveness in the developing
process. I am a beginner in the B/W field and have just begun to develop film
myself. I am very open for suggestions.
> Although I have souped a ton (perhaps literally) of Tri-X in D76, from 35 to
> 8x10, it's been years since I have done any. Now, I only soup my own when I
> want to use Rodinal,, for its distinctive look. For years, my lab used the
> commercial equivalent of D76, really just the same as the home version, but
> optimized for a volume replenished system. Several years ago, they changed
> to Xtol. It seems that almost the entire world has taken on this new product
> as the perfect developer. I don't know, however, how well it works for
> pushing.
When I bought the replacement developer for Rodinal, I had the choice between
Xtol and D-76. Xtol seemed more modern to me, but some members of the
de.rec.fotografie newsgroup like D-76 for the distinctive look, in particular
with a 1:1 solution.
> An interesting sidelight. Some of you may remember that I commented several
> months ago about a substantial speed gain using FP4 in Xtol, not seen with
> other films.
Ah, that sounds interesting. It makes home development to a kind of alchemy :-)
> At the time, I forgot to mention that I had the same result
> with one other film. Rarely, I use Fuji 1600 for street photography after
> dark. Although I have not tested it, and I will before my November trip to
> Italy, I suspect a one stop gain. Still don't understand this situation, as
> it doesn't exist with other films I have used in Xtol, Plus-X and Pan-F.
> Maybe it's something I ate.
But are we talkin about the same film? I meant the C-41 colour negative film
FujiPress 800, pushed to 1600 by a pro lab.
I am puzzled and curious.
Bernd Moeller
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|