On Thursday 22 April 2004 11:39, you wrote:
<snip>
> Ilford PanF has a long straightline response with a slight curve
> which barely is a curve. More like a knee. Tonal response is
> linear right up to the point where you hit DMAX on the film. It
> isn't forgiving to over-exposure, nor to under-exposure. A
> difficult film to work with (and slow), but extremely rewarding
> when you get it right. Probably the most rewarding
> general-purpose film you'll ever shoot. You will have "arrived"
> when you can consistantly get good results from PanF.
Aeons ago I tried to work with PanF but it was pretty much a failure. I
noticed the long, linear response in zones 3 to 5-1/2 or so, but got the toe
and shoulders wrong. Out of curiosity, has the emulsion changed in the last
20 or so years? It gave me a siren song, but I couldn't sing along.
What is your workflow for PanF today? As you may recall, I was persauded by
your praise of DD-X and it is now in the building ...
> If I sound like I'm partial to Ilford, well, I am. I've said it
> a couple dozen times before and I'll say it again. Ilford Delta
> 400 processed in Ilford DD-X is my all-time favorite
> film/developer combination. You can shoot/process it at ISO
> 400, 520, 640, 800 and 1600 with little no visible difference in
> grain or tonality. Delta films have a slightly fogged base
> which makes them much better for scanning too. Too each his/her
> own, but D400/DD-X is my money film.
I will be giving Agfa a shot in the DD-X as well.
Earl
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|