Thomas,
As a newbie (to Oly, not to B&W photography) I applaud your efforts. There may
be some
variables, though. Is the developer the right one for each film? It might be
right for
one, while another may give better results for the other. Is film development
time the
same for both (not on the box; in real life)? If not, that may account for
thinner, or
thicker, negs. Finally, as Gary Reese's tests show, even two lenses of the
same make
and speed can perform differently. (Even I feel shaky on that last point; I
trust Gary,
but this is his experience, not my own.) I've had experience with different
films in
different developers at different times. The bottom line is, as you note, what
is
aesthetically pleasing to you. But if testing is part of the process, then
doesn't each
film deserve what suits it best.
John
Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> First off, I wish to thank you all for your replies. It seems that there are
> no
> good reasons not to stick with what I know - the Ilford delta100/400 and/or
> FP4/HP5.
>
> However while the opinions on the delta and the FP/HP-equivalents were
> somewhat
> varying (as in "I prefer XXX over YYY because..."), noone had anything
> directly
> negative to say about either film. That's good ;)
>
> This other day I did some informal testing: I loaded the OM2s/p with a
> delta400
> and the OM4 with a HP5, mounted a Zuiko 50/1.8 on both cameras and went to
> shoot
> just plain and ordinary motives with the two setups, using even the same,
> metered exposures. In other words, I did not try to "push" the film, rather
> see
> which takes the better pictures under "normal" conditions (which - I may add -
> is rather like how I usual shoot. Pushing the films is not a game I play much,
> usually).
>
> Back home, I developed the two films in a "standard" developer, Tetenal
> Ultrafin, according to reccomendations on the bottle. And finally copied the
> negatives. Here are my experiences:
>
> The contact copies (right word) showed the delta-400 negatives to be less
> "transparent". I.e. more light was required to pass through the negative to
> make the color "black". This was supported by experiences when making
> enlargements, where the delta-400 negatives consistanty required longer
> exposure to make "good" copies.
>
> I started making enlargements at size 10x15cm of some select negatives, and
> allready at that size it appeared to me that the delta400 had a visible higher
> definition than the HP5, however both were definitely of a high quality and
> there were - as one could expect - no visible grains. At 18x24 cm, both still
> looked good, however I could clearly see grains in the HP5, while grains were
> not as clearly in the delta400 (using a magnifying glass). More remarkable
> was,
> though, that the definition seemed to be higher in the delta400 than in the
> HP5. That is: the "tests" confirmed my suspicion that the delta400 did better
> when enlarged than the HP5 (but I never tried to do directly comparable
> negatives before).
>
> Those were the strictly unscientific experiences - however as mentioned before
> in this thread, the important thing is to get a result that is aesthetically
> pleasent and not scientific correct.
>
> And on that note I will add that when I was out taking pictures for this test,
> I brought my Zuiko 100/2.8 and a spare OM2n with the delta400. This setup got
> me a few very nice closeups of frost-covered leaves in the twillight - the
> result is something that I find aesthetically pleasent. Indeed, yesterday was
> a
> good day *smile* (should get a scan and show it off to the listmembers, I
> guess...)
>
> Anyways, those were the words from me. 'till later
>
> --thomas
>
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Shawn Wright wrote:
> > On 20 Jan 00, at 2:23, Thomas Heide Clausen wrote:
> >
> > > > I've heard that Delta 100 retains FP4's 'look'
> > > > with finer grain and comparable edge definition, so I will have to give
> > > > it a
> > > > try sometime. There is always APX25 if you want really big
> > > > enlargements...
> > > >
> > > > >One may ask, then, why use FP4 and HP5 atall.
> > > >
> > > > I know there are marketing people at Ilford who are baffled that there
> > > > is
> > > > still huge demand for these films. I'm sure it's not due to the price
> > > > difference. Progress doesn't suit everyone all of the time, but if you
> > > > find
> > > > a combination that suits you, just go ahead and take some photos.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess - but it has to be a guess - that the reason mainly is "habit".
> > > The names are well-known, so that's what you buy. When ordering in
> > > bulk from a mail catalogue (as I imagine that many schools and other
> > > larger
> > > consumers may do), then ordering some familiar name is probably
> > > preferable over
> > > having to "think" about new products.
> > >
> > I've used mostly FP4/FP4+ for about 15 years, mainly because it is so
> > flexible and is capable of acheiving quite fine grain and good sharpness. I
> > tried Delta 100 & 400 compared with FP4+/HP5+, and found the Delta films
> > to be less flexible to pushing and pulling (using Microphen, ID-11 and
> > Microdol-X for the various tests). I did find that both Deltas perform very
> > well
> > at or near there rated speed, but fall apart very quickly when pushed.
> >
> > As a result, I still use FP4+ bulk rolled - mostly at EI 100 with ID-11,
> > but often
> > at EI 250-400 with Microphen when I need more speed. My favourite shot in
> > recent years was made at EI 400 with FP+/Microphen - I have it enlarged to
> > 11x14" in my office and the grain is very acceptable.
> >
> >
> > ========================
> > Shawn Wright
> > Computer Systems Manager
> > Shawnigan Lake School
> > http://www.sls.bc.ca
> > swright@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> > < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
> --
> Mange hilsner / Sincerely
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Thomas Heide Clausen
> Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
> M.Sc in Computer Engineering
>
> E-Mail: T.Clausen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> WWW: http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
> -------------------------------------------
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|