jordan@ucbvax.ARPA (Jordan Hayes) (08/07/85)
Poor Dick Delagi, can't use XP1 (a variable EI film...) at 200, because it looses contrast... Get a grip. Use a real film, like tri-x, but expose it at 250 (where kodak actually hints at...). ------------ Jordan Hayes jordan@UCB-VAX.BERKELEY.EDU UC Berkeley ucbvax!jordan +1 (415) 835-8767 37' 52.29" N 122' 15.41" W
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (08/08/85)
> Poor Dick Delagi, can't use XP1 (a variable EI film...) at 200, > because it looses contrast... Get a grip. Use a real film, > like tri-x, but expose it at 250 (where kodak actually hints at...). I think possibly you misinterpreted Delagi's motives. Delagi's article was a discussion of how to get the best sharpness and minimum grain, using whatever film he could find that would do the best job. (He gave very good discussions of developers, incidentally, and claimed to have devised the formula used in Kodak's Technidol developer.) I would think that Tri-X would not satisfy him, since it is an extremely grainy film! -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (08/10/85)
In article <9719@ucbvax.ARPA> jordan@ucbvax.UUCP (Jordan Hayes) writes: > >Poor Dick Delagi, can't use XP1 (a variable EI film...) at 200, >because it looses contrast... Get a grip. Use a real film, >like tri-x, but expose it at 250 (where kodak actually hints at...). > >------------ >Jordan Hayes jordan@UCB-VAX.BERKELEY.EDU >UC Berkeley ucbvax!jordan >+1 (415) 835-8767 37' 52.29" N 122' 15.41" W I used tri-X developed in 1 to 1 diluted D76 exclusively for about five years. It is a wonderful film, no question. After my first trials with XP1 I decided it had sufficient flexibility and so much greater a tonal range, also a grain size that competes with asa 25 films, that I have stuck to it ever since I first tried it three years ago. Incidentally, until this year, I was shooting it at asa 200 in order to get slightly better grain, but decided to go back to 400 for most work in order to get that extra little bit of contrast. Perhaps you should get some experience with the stuff before you go shooting your mouth off with excruciatingly funny bits of sarcasm. -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc. ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner
sasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) (08/14/85)
I also used Tri-X for years, and later changed to HP-5. I developed
both films in Rodinal, D-76, and HC-110 (dillution B), all with good
(and different) results. After trying XP1 I haven't used any other
black and white film for 35mm.
The tonal range is very wide, the grain very fine (expecially for an
ISO 400 film), and my negatives match well with my enlarger and it's
lens allowing me to print "average" negatives on grade 3 paper.
One thing I worry about is the longevity of the negatives. You can
mistreat a normal b&w negative and still have something that you can
make a print from. I've noticed that some of my Vericolor negatives
have shifted color quite a bit, and seem to be a little thinner than
they were a few years ago. Since XP1's technology is similar, I
suspect that it's lifetime is about the same. Does anyone know
anything about this?
--
----------------
Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp}
Havard University Science Center phone: 617-495-1270
One Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138jordan@ucbvax.ARPA (Jordan Hayes) (08/16/85)
In article <478@tymix.UUCP> kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) writes:
Perhaps you should get some experience with the stuff before
you go shooting your mouth off with excruciatingly funny bits
of sarcasm.
Sorry to hear that you thought it was sarcasm. I've shot thousands of
rolls tri-x, and have grown used to the performance I get from it. I
suppose that explains why I still use it. I also suppose that's why I
don't use XP-1, which I tried in sample quantities before it came out.
Exposed and developed properly, tri-x gives me better performance than
XP-1 (or AGFA's vario-xl for that matter).
My question is this: how much is "some experience" ?? Can you say "200
or so" ?? That is how many rolls I shot of XP-1 before I realized that
what I had hoped for when I first read of it was all just a dream. The
choosing of film, of course, comes down to a personal level, just as
anything else does (like camera equiptment manufacturers).
I buy Nikon equiptment because I can trust it. Note, by the way, that I
don't think it's inherently *better*, only that I know when I have a
strap break or get run into by a 300lb football player that my F2as
will hold up. I know that when I have the need for a 600mm f/4 lens, it
will be available. There's a lot to be said about trust when it comes
to picking products.
I know I can depend on tri-x. I had high hopes for XP-1 when I first
saw it, and tried to give it a chance, but it let me down.
------------
Jordan Hayes jordan@UCB-VAX.BERKELEY.EDU
UC Berkeley ucbvax!jordan
+1 (415) 835-8767 37' 52.29" N 122' 15.41" Wkanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (08/19/85)
In article <9941@ucbvax.ARPA> jordan@ucbvax.UUCP (Jordan Hayes) writes: > >In article <478@tymix.UUCP> kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) writes: > Perhaps you should get some experience with the stuff before > you go shooting your mouth off with excruciatingly funny bits > of sarcasm. > >Sorry to hear that you thought it was sarcasm. I've shot thousands of >rolls tri-x, and have grown used to the performance I get from it. I >suppose that explains why I still use it. I also suppose that's why I >don't use XP-1, which I tried in sample quantities before it came out. >Exposed and developed properly, tri-x gives me better performance than >XP-1 (or AGFA's vario-xl for that matter). > >My question is this: how much is "some experience" ?? Can you say "200 >or so" ?? That is how many rolls I shot of XP-1 before I realized that >what I had hoped for when I first read of it was all just a dream. The >choosing of film, of course, comes down to a personal level, just as >anything else does (like camera equiptment manufacturers). > First, please accept my apology for the flame. It is the second time I have done it this year, and each time I regretted it. The trouble is, that when we try to keep our submissions short we sometimes give misimpressions. I agree that reaction to materials is a very personal matter. At the risk of being excessively wordy, I want to summarize where I "came from" when I went to XP1 and also to relate second hand another person's experience. Although I have been dabbling at photography for 40 years, I first got really serious about B&W work in 1970. I was in England at the time. I went on a fine-grain/acutance-developer kick and for several years stuck to Pan F developed with minimal agitation in Neofin Blue. This is a Beutler developer which, when used correctly, gives an illusion of more sharpness than corresponds to the actual resolution because of the presence of what I believe are called Mackie Lines at the interfaces between areas of differing density. Well, I got some incredible results, but finally was not willing to cope with the restrictions this combination forced on me. First, this procedure resulted in a restricted curve at the high-exposure end, and it was virtually impossible to get any structure on a white object such as a swan without drastically under-exposing the surroundings. Second, although Tetenal recommended doubling the film speed to get a thin neg, even ASA 100 did not cope with some of those British winter mornings. So, I went to the other extreme, and from say 1972 until XP1 appeared I stuck to Tri X, usually developed in 1 to 1 diluted D76. I was usually quite happy with it, expect when dealing with human faces. My first test roll with XP1 impressed the hell out of me. I deliberately shot one scene, a cat in a garden, at ASA 100, 200, and 400, and found that by playing with the Polycontrast filters I could get virtually identical prints from all three. I also found that on grain and resolution, it not only beat Tri X, but also beat Plus X. I don't have curves available on Tri X, but looking at an Ilford data book which has sensitometric curves on all their films, I see that XP1 has a usable log exposure range one unit (i.e., a factor of ten) greater than HP5, a film which is supposed to be similar to Tri X. Grain in XP1 is not really grain in the same sense as grain in conventional film. It is the result of a Poisson distribution of dye clumps, which essentially goes away as soon as the negative gets dense enough that these clumps overlap. Therefore, with a well exposed shot, the grain is seen in the darkest parts of the print, where it is not really noticed. If a negative is everywhere thin, with this stuff, it will be everywhere grainy. In my own experiments, I found that rating it at 800 consistently produced terrible results, and I am still vacillating between 200 and 400, depending on which camera I am using. One other comment. While I am almost exclusively sticking to XP1 because of its versatility and tonal range, I recently just for the hell of it ran a roll of Pan F developed in Rodinal, and got the impression that a portrait of the head of a cat printed up with a degree of crispness that I haven't been able to match with XP1. Supporting your comment about how personal this all can get, I remember a column written by Victor Blackman, a British photojournalist who writes weekly in the magazine Amateur Photographer. This was shortly after the introduction by Ilford of HP5. Blackman was a user of Tri X, as are most people in his trade. He said that he had given HP5 a serious try, couldn't figure out why it did not work for him, but that the prints he got from those negatives were just not satisfactory compared to Tri X. I too use Nikons. Have a Nikkormat, an FM-2, an old Rollei 35S, a Minox GT, and a few weeks ago got wildly extravagant and bought a Contax T. Most beloved lenses are Vivitar Series 1 70 to 210 and 28 to 90. -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc. ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner
jordan@ucbvax.ARPA (Jordan Hayes) (08/29/85)
In article <482@tymix.UUCP> kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) writes: >First, please accept my apology for the flame. It is the second time I >have done it this year, and each time I regretted it. The trouble is, that >when we try to keep our submissions short we sometimes give misimpressions. No prob. I can understand it, and a friend of mine told me once before he died to never be afraid to piss someone off. Excuse my french. Pan F with neofin blue, eh? wonderful combination, but, alas, such a pain... Herb, I have nothing to say about your experience with different films. This conversation should never have taken place. Alas, it has, so we should conclude it. I gave XP1 another shot (5 rolls, what the heck...) and found that I *could* get pleasing results out of it, if I really tried to maximize the finer points of the film. I guess its just second nature how to coax performance out of tri-x, so I'm lazy... >I too use Nikons. Have a Nikkormat, an FM-2, an old Rollei 35S, a Minox >GT, and a few weeks ago got wildly extravagant and bought a Contax T. Most >beloved lenses are Vivitar Series 1 70 to 210 and 28 to 90. I have a Nikkormat as well, but it got beat up a little. I also have an FM-2 as well as a mint-condition F-2as (no, I *won't* tell you where I live... I already have had ~$4000 worth of Nikon stuff ripped off through 2 muggings and a car break-in... I'm NOT giving up this beautie..) EEK! Vivitar lenses? tsk tsk... new fave of mine is a 300mm ED-IF f/4.5 --- feels like butter in my hands... too bad it wasn't as cheap as a half pound of oleo... ------------ Jordan Hayes jordan@UCB-VAX.BERKELEY.EDU UC Berkeley ucbvax!jordan +1 (415) 835-8767 37' 52.29" N 122' 15.41" W