G
Guest
T400Cn is very versitile. I've shot it at 800 and 1600 with normal processing. THe results were great.
-
Quick access all forums:Photography and Techniques Nature & Wildlife Landscape & Travel City, Street & Transportation People, Portrait & Wedding Black & White Macro & Still Life Sport & Action Everything else Editing / Hardware & Software
Assignments & Critique Images I took this week Photo Critique Challenges Challenge Discussions
Gear-Talk General Gear Talk Canon Nikon Sony & Minolta Fujifilm X System & DSLRs L-Mount Alliance MicroFourThirds (MFT) Pentax & Ricoh Medium Format Leica M, Leica R, Leica Q Other brands Contax MTF Charts, Broschures etc Information Contax & Zeiss Sigma SA/ DP/DPMerrill/Quattro Others Smartphones, P&S and Drones Adapted Lens Talk Classifieds
General stuff Announcements Forum-Help/ "Have you seen...?" Introduce yourself DPRF Cafe Suggestions regarding this forum
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
Guest
I've tried the T400CN and the result is extremely sharp. Any experience with Ilford Delta films?
Trisnadi
Trisnadi
G
Guest
Ilford Delta has a great line of traditional B&W films. I personally perfer Ilford HP5+ or HP4+ as well as the Kodak Tri-X, TMX and TMY. I love the look and forgivingness of the Tri-X.
The T400CN is C-41 B&W film. The Ilford counter part is XP2. For this category, I personally perfer Kodak Portra 400 BW. Very fine grain, good skin tone and great latitude.
The T400CN is C-41 B&W film. The Ilford counter part is XP2. For this category, I personally perfer Kodak Portra 400 BW. Very fine grain, good skin tone and great latitude.
G
Guest
Returning to David, who asked the original question:
"THE CONTRAST OF THE LENSES CARL ZEISS IS TOWERING, I REFERRED IF THERE IS A FILM THAT REDUCES THAT HIGH CONTRAST SMOOTHLY AND THAT HE/SHE GOES BETTER FOR THIS TYPE OF EYEGLASSES, SINGLE ERA THIS THE QUESTION."
I think that you are confusing two very different concepts here. Lens contrast refers to the ablility of a lens to separate light and dark points. High contrast in a lens is always a good thing. Film contrast refers the rate of change which a film demonstrates in response to increasing brightness. A high contrast film changes its density more steeply than a low contrast film and thus shows a steeper gradation of tonality. Which is more desirable depends on many factors, including subject matter, lighting and photographic purpose. But a low contrast film should not be thought of as providing a "correction" for a high contrast lens. Likewise, a high contrast film will not improve the image created by a low contrast lens.
"THE CONTRAST OF THE LENSES CARL ZEISS IS TOWERING, I REFERRED IF THERE IS A FILM THAT REDUCES THAT HIGH CONTRAST SMOOTHLY AND THAT HE/SHE GOES BETTER FOR THIS TYPE OF EYEGLASSES, SINGLE ERA THIS THE QUESTION."
I think that you are confusing two very different concepts here. Lens contrast refers to the ablility of a lens to separate light and dark points. High contrast in a lens is always a good thing. Film contrast refers the rate of change which a film demonstrates in response to increasing brightness. A high contrast film changes its density more steeply than a low contrast film and thus shows a steeper gradation of tonality. Which is more desirable depends on many factors, including subject matter, lighting and photographic purpose. But a low contrast film should not be thought of as providing a "correction" for a high contrast lens. Likewise, a high contrast film will not improve the image created by a low contrast lens.
G
Guest
Robert, you are correct in yor answer to David on congtrast of lenses versus film. I think you are the only one to who actualy understood his request.
David - you can contol contrast through exposure and development of your film, if you use conventional black & white films. Ansel Adams called the technique the ZONE SYSTEM. There are many texts available that explain the zone system, but the easiest to understand is on photdo.com - there are five articles that you can read on the subject. Of course, Adams could control each photo since he used sheet film.
With 35mm film, you must work with a whole roll at one time. I have used Kodak Tri-X at 400, Plus-X at 200, Ilford FP-4 at 200, and HP-5 at 500 with excellant results.
My favorite developer was Agfa's Rodinal at various dilutions and time-temperature combinations. I also was succesful with Tri-X and HP-5 using the water bath method. You pour out the developer halfway through the dev. time, pour in water at the same temperature and let it sit for 2 minutes. Then, dump the water and return the developer to the tank to finish the processing.
What happens? The highlights (dark areas of the negative) exhaust the developer more rapidly than the shadows (light areas of the negatives). The water stops development of the highlights and allows the shadows to continue to develop thus compressing the contrast range. TRI-X and HP-5 react well to this method with both Rodinal and Microdol-X developers.
By using these methods I was able to place the contrast of my negatives in the range I needed to print on normal grade paper. Grain was excellant and cropped 16x20 prints were possible. I won many awards in camera club competition.
Jim
David - you can contol contrast through exposure and development of your film, if you use conventional black & white films. Ansel Adams called the technique the ZONE SYSTEM. There are many texts available that explain the zone system, but the easiest to understand is on photdo.com - there are five articles that you can read on the subject. Of course, Adams could control each photo since he used sheet film.
With 35mm film, you must work with a whole roll at one time. I have used Kodak Tri-X at 400, Plus-X at 200, Ilford FP-4 at 200, and HP-5 at 500 with excellant results.
My favorite developer was Agfa's Rodinal at various dilutions and time-temperature combinations. I also was succesful with Tri-X and HP-5 using the water bath method. You pour out the developer halfway through the dev. time, pour in water at the same temperature and let it sit for 2 minutes. Then, dump the water and return the developer to the tank to finish the processing.
What happens? The highlights (dark areas of the negative) exhaust the developer more rapidly than the shadows (light areas of the negatives). The water stops development of the highlights and allows the shadows to continue to develop thus compressing the contrast range. TRI-X and HP-5 react well to this method with both Rodinal and Microdol-X developers.
By using these methods I was able to place the contrast of my negatives in the range I needed to print on normal grade paper. Grain was excellant and cropped 16x20 prints were possible. I won many awards in camera club competition.
Jim
G
Guest
The best B&W results I've had with the G2 have been with Ilford XP2 Super. I've also loved the results I get with HP5+ (which is fantastic pushed one stop) and, when contrast is not too great, Neopan 1600 (which seems amazingly sharp). Ilford Delta 400 is a fine choice too, although, speaking subjectively, it didn't have a look that seemed as pleasingly distinctive as the others. But there are so many variables (maybe some processing shops do a better job with some types of film, synergies with paper and developer etc.) that the film may have little to do with it. On the whole, though, I have consistently been impressed with XP2 Super, and for whatever reason it seems to look better with G lenses than without.
For color print film it's tough to beat Reala and the new and improved NPH 400; I haven't found a Kodak film that I like as much as these. I think NPH pushed a stop is still better than NPZ 800. Favorite all-round slide film is Provia 100, but the Kodak 100VS is great stuff if you want even more saturation and not worried about skin tones, and Astia does a nice job with skin tones. Velvia is of course great, but I find its slow speed a bit of a pain. I don't know that any of these have a particular synergy with G lenses -- XP2 Super is the only one where I have thought there might be something special about the combination.
Kirk
For color print film it's tough to beat Reala and the new and improved NPH 400; I haven't found a Kodak film that I like as much as these. I think NPH pushed a stop is still better than NPZ 800. Favorite all-round slide film is Provia 100, but the Kodak 100VS is great stuff if you want even more saturation and not worried about skin tones, and Astia does a nice job with skin tones. Velvia is of course great, but I find its slow speed a bit of a pain. I don't know that any of these have a particular synergy with G lenses -- XP2 Super is the only one where I have thought there might be something special about the combination.
Kirk
G
Guest
> This is my first attempt to join the discussion forum I would be interested to hear opinions on the best film to use for Architecture at night Photography for N1 and 645 Noel Greene.
I just tried my first roll of Kodak T400CN. WOW!
The contrast and grey scale are remarkable. I had 3x5 prints made on Kodak Royal paper. i am thinking that I might jus use this as my standard B&W film. I used all three of my lenses, 28,45, & 90. Great results with all three
Jim Slater
The contrast and grey scale are remarkable. I had 3x5 prints made on Kodak Royal paper. i am thinking that I might jus use this as my standard B&W film. I used all three of my lenses, 28,45, & 90. Great results with all three
Jim Slater
Jim,
I am surprised that you are satisfied with prints from T400CN on color paper, unless the printing was done by a digital laser printer, such as the Noritsu 2901 or Fuji Frontier. Otherwise, the C-41 B&W films look much better printed on true B&W paper. The only exception, to my knowledge, is Kodak Portra B&W, which is supposedly designed for printing on color paper. I have no experience with this particular film.
I am surprised that you are satisfied with prints from T400CN on color paper, unless the printing was done by a digital laser printer, such as the Noritsu 2901 or Fuji Frontier. Otherwise, the C-41 B&W films look much better printed on true B&W paper. The only exception, to my knowledge, is Kodak Portra B&W, which is supposedly designed for printing on color paper. I have no experience with this particular film.
Bob,
This was the first roll of T400CN I used. I am not sure what printer the lab uses, but they do a sizable amount of T400CN procesing and have a setup in the printer for this film. I will have soe prints made on other papers to compare with the ones I have. The grey scale looks good and I have good dense blacks with pure white. The photos were shot on a cloudy day, but there was some sun filterng through the cloud layer. Film data sheets used to call this 'cloudy bright.'
I will try a roll or two on a bright sunny day and see what I get. I want to tru the Portra also.
This was the first roll of T400CN I used. I am not sure what printer the lab uses, but they do a sizable amount of T400CN procesing and have a setup in the printer for this film. I will have soe prints made on other papers to compare with the ones I have. The grey scale looks good and I have good dense blacks with pure white. The photos were shot on a cloudy day, but there was some sun filterng through the cloud layer. Film data sheets used to call this 'cloudy bright.'
I will try a roll or two on a bright sunny day and see what I get. I want to tru the Portra also.