tv replied to me:
> > I also finally got around to getting some
> > Neopan 1600 blown up to 8x10. [...]
> > It's less contrasty (though
> > I usually shoot TMZ at 6400, so that's not an
> > apples-to-apples comparison).
>
> Hmm. I get lots of contrast with Neopan. I think it's the only film I've
> ever shot that had good contrast at the recommended developer time/temp.
Looking at these prints, I'd say it has _enough_ contrast, and
TMZ has more. (Remember that I like Tri-X and don't like TMY.)
> The stuff I've shot has a nice snappy sharpness to it, but the grain is
> a wee little rough.
A wee little? Heh... I'm looking at a young woman who seems
to have suddenly sprouted the most amazing number of freckles... :-)
> Lately I've settled on TMZ at 1600 in 35mm, Delta 3200 at 1250 for 120.
> Really fantastic results compared to the crap I used to put out. I can't
> seem to really consistently get anything good at 3200.
I don't think I've gotten around to trying TMZ at 1600 (and when
my Win95 box finishes untangling itself (it forgot its display
adaptor _again_) I'll check my database to verify that), but I
keep meaning to. Someone showed me stuff he'd shot on TMZ at
1000 once, and I found it very smooth looking.
> I've been shooting the new Delta 400 lately, and it looks *very* nice.
> It seems like it's actually more like a 500 speed film.
That's a TMax-looking kind of film, right? Or is it something
I ought to give another try?
> It sounds like you had fun today.
Yah. Not as much fun as I had on the Fourth, failing to photograph
the fireworks (there was a pretty woman involved then, instead of a
pretty day), but I enjoyed the sunshine without _feeling_ like I was
goofing off. :-)
-- Glenn
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
