in 120 FP4 is a bit different than in 35 and I like it even better.
HP5 can get much more abuse than FP4, push it as much as you want!
I still buy APX100 by the 100' loads ;) been using it for over 20 years and can't find a replacement !
I started trying the Neopans as per kostas reccomendation, Neopan 1600 is much better than Delta 3200 IMHO, grainwise, tonality wise and can be pushed to 12,800. Neopan 400 is a unique animal, still testing it but gives lovely tones/grain with Rodinal 1+50. Acros in Rodinal gets a tri-dimensional quality almost, incredibly sharp and very litle grain.
I'm going to try the perverted versions of Rodinal+Xtol that supposedly give the best of both worlds.
XP2 is the film of choice of my father-in-law after I introduced him to it, canbe processed anywhere and then he sends me the negs for me to make real prints of the pictures he likes ;)
I like it too even though is kinda hard to compose under my enlarger becasue grain is hard to find.
At 08:04 PM 9/30/04, you wrote:
unBob Rosen <afterswift@xxxxxx> writes:
> Dear Colleagues, > > David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > >> >>> >>>TMAX 3200 (although recently I've used Ilford 3200) In both cases I >>>use them at an EI of 1600. I develop them in Rodinal. I find TMAX's >>>grain structure nicer, although the Ilford emulsion isn't too bad. >>> >> >>I find I have a strong preference for the Ilford; the TMAX is just >>flat somehow. However, I'm not developing either myself. >> > Weird. If anything I find the opposite. But I've not actually done > any side by side comparisons.
I have, and I find the Ilford much cleaner-looking.
>>>FP4+ again, developed in Rodinal (hey -- I develop *everything* in >>>Rodinal). I like the look of this film and it's pretty forgiving.
>>I shot 100 feet of that once, back in the 1970s. Most hated film I >>ever saw.
> :-) I guess that's why we're individuals.
Yep. Looking back -- part of my results may have been because the FP4 didn't have the slight purple base tint that the PLUS-X did. I was printing mostly on variable-contrast paper.... Haven't actually tested the theory, I invented it *years* later.
>>I'm actually really impressed with the Ilford XP2 Super (after having >>a really bad experience with the original XP, back in the 1980s).
> Is that a B&W C41 emulsion? I've got to say I've never shot it. I > have tried one of these developed as B&W and I quite liked it, but it > was just an experiment with a roll of old film. I didn't really go > back there again.
Yes. I've seen 4-foot prints from 35mm XP2 that are clean, smooth, and grainless. And I've shot some in 4x5....
My bad experience with XP back in the 80s was quite possibly because I developed it in conventional B&W chemistry (in accordance with their instructions; they didn't make clear to me that the C-41 route was *preferred*). Grain was horrid.
> Oooh, I almost forgot... > > The public wants to see more use of film. They DEMAND their PQRSTUVW! > And FP4+ is only hated by digital lovers :-p > > I feel so much better now :-D
Good!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Pablo Coronel Ph.D. Candidate Food Science Department North Carolina State University Room 39 Schaub Hall, Box 7624 Raleigh, NC, 27695
Phone (919) 515-4410 Fax (919) 515-7124 e-Fax (419) 818-7590 e-mail pcorone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www4.ncsu.edu/~pcorone
