There is soo much short dated film on ePrey I refuse to pay more than 2 bux a roll depending on the date.
I recently scored a lot of Ektachrome EPP that was from the late 80's and it hadn't shifted hardly at all. I was surprised.
EPP is my favorite for cross pross so it doesn't matter to me.
ISO1600 wrote:
except for that horrible Kodak 1600. That was probably just because it was Kodak though. EWWWWW (in ref to TWoK's cheap expired purchases)
That was given to me for free on Okinawa and yes, it was disgusting.
brucemuir wrote:
Joe,
although this wiki has some erroneous info it will give you an idea what's going on.
T grain is usually super fine grain for the speed because the way the grains are designed they are more sensitive to light.
That blurb says Neopan is a T grain but I think only the 100 speed Neopan SS is T grain. The 400 and 1600 types are traditional grain but don't hold me to this. I haven't examined it under a microscope but if I recall someone did and has it on the net somewhere.
Acros 100 is the only T-grain Neopan, SS is a traditional emulsion.
almost s good as the thread where some ds said "digital wins".
Bruce, get any good enlarers lately? Just picked up another D5-XL Enlarger with the Super Chromega Dichroic II Head, turret, Nikor lenses (135,100, 50), regulator, timer, etc. for $100!
These things are a steal these days.
And FWIW, I've standardized my film to TMY2 ONLY for 4x5 and 6x6. I buy new for consistency sake. I'm trying to eliminate variables from my system for more predictable results. Standardizing chemicals and processes too. Seems B&H is best best by a buck or two.
35mm though, I still look for deals on 100' roll film; Freestyle has recently expired film at good discounts.
I got a few of those expired Foma 100 footers from freestyle.
17 bux a roll was too good to pass up.
Luckily the emulsion batch doesn't appear to suffer from the scratches syndrome that's been reported with both the Foma 100 and 200 stock in 35mm and 120.
Joe P,
yes I did finally get a Super Chromega II head to mount on my DII. It didn't come with a voltage stabilizer or Chromegatrol (just the standard power supply) and that can be the expensive link in the chain. I'm waiting for a deal to pop up but I did steal the head and mounting hardware.
Now the issue is obtaining decent color paper. I been scoring rolls and cutting the stuff down myself but it's a PITA.
If by 'boring' you mean predictable, dependable, consistent and accurate with a smooth and fine grain pattern, then I agree. If you're looking for the excitement of surprise then Kodak emulsions are probably better. You get surprising steps in tone with T-max, and surprisingly clumpy grain with the classics.
brainiac wrote:
If by 'boring' you mean predictable, dependable, consistent and accurate with a smooth and fine grain pattern, then I agree. If you're looking for the excitement of surprise then Kodak emulsions are probably better. You get surprising steps in tone with T-max, and surprisingly clumpy grain with the classics.
While I think ISO1600 is being his usual abrasive self, I do have to say that I think the Ilford Delta films are fairly "boring" -- as are the Kodak TMax ones. Yes, they are reliable, solid, excellent grain blah blah yada yada but they really don't have much personality at all. Give me Pan-F, FP4+, HP5+, TriX and PlusX any day. In fact, GIVE ME BACK VERICHROME PAN YOU EVIL F-IN KODAK BASTARDS.
I do have to say that the Delta/TMax films fit some people's style (e.g. John Sexton), but I've never gotten along with them. They're just too.... plain.
pingflood wrote:
While I think ISO1600 is being his usual abrasive self, I do have to say that I think the Ilford Delta films are fairly "boring" -- as are the Kodak TMax ones. Yes, they are reliable, solid, excellent grain blah blah yada yada but they really don't have much personality at all. Give me Pan-F, FP4+, HP5+, TriX and PlusX any day. In fact, GIVE ME BACK VERICHROME PAN YOU EVIL F-IN KODAK BASTARDS.
I do have to say that the Delta/TMax films fit some people's style (e.g. John Sexton), but I've never gotten along with them. They're just too.... plain.
I agree that Delta is poor because it seems to have no mid-tones. It's all about sharpness and contrast. Yuk. T-max images often look like they are 4-bit gifs, with flat panels of tone, i.e. posterisation. But to my eye none of the Kodak or Fuji emulsions I've used compete with the excellent continuity of tone found in the classic Ilford films, FP4, HP5, and Pan F. The Agfas came close, even the x versions.
Tri-X seems to have an over-muddy thickness in the mid-tones and too much variation in grain size so that it can lack smoothness. Of course, all these factors depend a lot on development, but I still think that if you find FP4 or HP5 boring, you may be doing something wrong. If you are relying on film emulsions to make your pictures un-boring, then maybe you should take up painting.
I do not need punchy contrast or black blacks to make my photographs what they are, i just find a million different shades of gray to be overly bland. It is literally painful for me to look at the "smooth tones" that most of you often covet in B&W film.
pingflood wrote:
Brainiac, did you ever use Verichrome Pan 125? That was my all time favorite B&W film; lovely, smooth tones.
Sadly not, and I gave up film a decade ago Sometimes I miss it, but usually it's just a relief. Ultrachrome b+w prints from 21 Mpixels stamp out any occasional yearnings for the good ol' days.
I asked for Tri-X 320 at the lab, and the lady behind the counter just rolled her eyes. "T-Max is what you want" she said, and that is almost verbatim. Kind of surprised me. Also, I asked about her experience with stand developing, and that got a blank stare. It's like this internet is a whole 'nother world sometimes
i'd say that a very large percentage of people "involved" with photography in some fashion these days have no clue when it comes to B&W, darkroom stuff, and all that comes with that. I'll admit that I'm far from an expert, but i at least know my head from my ass.
Well, the thing that is funny is that according to her, she ran a lab for 8 years. It's not like these people are dumb - the store is taking preorders for the S2, and has a large format department - but the way people jump on "the right way" - you'd think they'd realize people looking for film anymore probably don't care about "the right way". I wanted the Tri-X for it's grain, not because I was looking for the smoothest grain around.
I think most hobbyists such as my self approach B/W film as a craft. And feel it necessary to have control of everything from the previsualization through the final print.
Labs fill a niche and provide services for people who want to oursource their development (and printing still??). So, I would think, labs are set up for high volume, one-size-fits-all, most common denominator service. They don't provide custom boutique services. To wit, the generic level of knowledge.
Kinda like having a discussion about beer with the bartender at Chili's vs. a good local Brew Pub.
ISO1600 wrote:
I do not need punchy contrast or black blacks to make my photographs what they are, i just find a million different shades of gray to be overly bland. It is literally painful for me to look at the "smooth tones" that most of you often covet in B&W film.
Why not just push your film? You should be able to get high contrast with pretty much any B&W film if you develop for it.
People make too much of a deal about the differences between Fuji, Kodak, and Ilford B&W films. Kodak and Ilford both offer traditional B&W films and 'new tech' films, and there are a lot of similarities between them. Fuji doesn't have as a big of range and seems to straddle the line between new tech and old tech.
Of course if you found a type of film that gives you the results you like, great.
Sometimes I miss it, but usually it's just a relief. Ultrachrome b+w prints from 21 Mpixels stamp out any occasional yearnings for the good ol' days.