I never said faster is ALWAYS better, I said that the vast majority of the time it is. There are far more photos taken with fstops smaller than F2.8 or not in bright sun where the extra film speed will improve the photo rather than the circumstances you desribe (F2.8 or faster in bright sun )& using single multicoated ND filter will hurt the photo. JCO
-----Original Message----- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 4:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: B&W developers and Tri-x ?? ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: B&W developers and Tri-x ?? > you can always use the same aperture with > a faster film, it just means a faster shutter > speed which is almost always BETTER. Really? So lets say I am in bright sunlight with a K1000 (as an example). At ISO 400, I will be shooting somewhere around 1/250 second at f/16. Great if I want lots of depth of field, but maybe I am shooting portraiture, which is one of the things I like to do. In order to limit depth of field, I need to be around f/2.8, a full 5 stops wider open. I can get 2 of those stops with the shutter speed, but in order to get the other three, I have to put an ND filter on. Now if I already have my standard B&W filter (light yellow), my requiremnt for neutral density has become 2 stops instead of three, but now I am stacking filters, which increases the possibility for flare, and image degradation from two more peices of glass and 4 more air surfaces. This, plus my own experience,plus the very different grain structures of the two films in question makes my very skeptical of what you are saying. What it boils down to is, as Shel said, two stops of speed is just that. It is neither an improvement nor a regression. It is just another factor in determining the correct film for the application. William Robb
