thomas_wollstein1

Instead of underdeveloping a fast film, why don't you try a slower

(and thus less grainy) film? Pulling will compress your tones w/o

achieving a significant reduction in grain. Only a change of film will

result in less grain.

At least on the German market, a direkt reversal kit manufactured by

Tetenal is available.

I am not aware of any web site, but I could recommend two books.

One is the classic

<p>

"The Negative" by Ansel Adams

<p>

It will not teach you a lot about the different current films, but it

will help you to understand how b&w films react in general, and how

you can influence the results.

<p>

"Perfect Exposure" by Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz

<p>

is a nice and comprehensive book on exposure in colour and b&w, and it

will teach you a lot of useful stuff, not only about different films.

This book is quite recent (1999), so it also deals with chromogenic

and high-chem films.

<p>

There is also a book on b&w photography by the same authors, and one

purely on the choice of films. I haven't read these (yet), but if they

are written in a style similar to that of the one on exposure, they

will be nice to read and informative.

<p>

For starters, make a decision if you wish to develop films yourself

right from the start. It is easy to do, but you will have to get some

more equipment. If you wish to try b&w shooting w/o developing

yourself, stick with the chromogenic films, such as T-max 400 CN and

Ilford XP2, because they can be developed with good results by the

store at the corner. (The process is the same as for most colour

films.) Also, these films are quite forgiving as far as over- and

under-exposure are concerned.

<p>

If you come from colour photography, remember that the b&w image

contains less information. Some colours, though appearing quite

different to the eye, will appear as nearly identical tones in the b&w

image. This means that some objects which appear clearly

differentiated when you look at a subject, may not contrast with the

background at all in a b&w image. To get an impression of what the b&w

image looks like, it helps to use a Kodak Wratten #90 filter to look

at a subject before shooting it. (See "The Negative".)

Meanwhile, I have checked: There is a product called Halo-Chrome,

aliquid emulsion which is said to result in a mirror-like appearance

of the exposed areas. The distributor in Germany states that it is an

American product.

The only phenomenon that spontaneously comes to mind would be static

electricity: When the film is rewound under conditions favouring

static electricty (e.g. dry air, certain material combinations), it is

possible that an electric discharge occurs between the film and the

cartidge. The electric arc caused by this discharge might result in

local exposure of the film.

Here's the method I have perfected over the years for my 35 mm films

after I scratched a few negatives using a squeegee:

<p>

1) Soak the film in a wetting-agent solution preferably made with

demineralised water.

<p>

2) Put the spiral in a salad centrifuge (in Germany you can buy these

things for something like 3 to 5 USD) and rotate it at the fastest

speed you manage to maintain for a minute or so. The speed will be the

faster the better the centrifuge is balanced. If you wish to process

one film only, put a balancing mass into the centrifuge on the side

opposite to the film. With two identical films in identical sprials it

works best.

<p>

If you then take the film out of the spiral, there is no water left on

the surface, so there are no drying marks, and the films dries fairly

quickly.

<p>

With 120 films, the method should work, too, provided your centrifuge

is big enough to take the spiral(s).

<p>

Years ago, I read the suggestion in a book to do the same thing with a

spin dryer for laundry. Thank god, I tried it with a test film w/o

anything on it, because the centrifugal force made the film collapse

under its own mass.

<p>

I don't think you will be able to generate such forces using a

manually driven centrifuge, because with such a lightweight plastic

thing, even small deviations from perfect balance (as are inevitable)

will have the effect of making it very hard to drive the thing faster

than at moderate speeds. (The steel drum of the spin dryer will

hardly feel an unbalance even if you fail to insert a balancing mass.)

Still, even at these slow speeds, the surface water is extracted.

Sorry for the way the table came out. I must say I am somewhat

surprised that the line feeds were omitted!

Ilford recommend you make test exposures first when using the film at

12500 and above. (See wwww.ilford.com) Also, For such high meter

settings, they only give times for a few developers.

<p>

The recommended developpers are:

<p>

ILFORD DD-X (1+4) 17 --- 12

MICROPHEN (stock) 16 1/2 --- 13 1/2

<p>

Time are also given for:

<p>

ID-11 (stock) 17 --- 13 1/2

Kodak D-76 (stock) as for ID-11

Kodak T-Max (1+4) 14 --- 13

Kodak Xtol (stock) 12 1/2 --- 11

<p>

BTW: They also give some data for EI 25000/45:

<p>

ILFORD DD-X (1+4) 25 --- 17

MICROPHEN (stock) 22 --- 17 1/2

<p>

Key:

Developer (dilution) time, in minutes, at 200C/680F --- time, in

minutes, at 240C/750F

Ilford publishes the characteristic curves (density over rel. log

exposure) in their technical data sheets (see www.ilford.com, under

products). From that material it appears that the curve of the Delta

3200 is less linear than that for the Delta 100 and 400, and does not

reach so far up. However, I don't know how it compares to Kodak

products, because I have been using the Ilford stuff over a long time

with excellent results, and it would take some time for me to get the

same experience with other materials.

<p>

Two other things come to mind, however:

<p>

1) You are comparing a high-chem emulsion to conventional emulsions by

visual inspection. A densitometer or a lab meter might reveal that the

differences appear to the naked eye only.

<p>

2) Can you rule out underdevelopment of the Delta 3200? If it

consistently lacks the high densities, that might be the reason.

Again, using a densitometer (or a lab meter), this time to determine

the gradient, might give an answer.

You will find comprehensive information in "The Keepers of Light" by

William Crawford.

From my knowledge (which is purely theoretical w/ respect to liquid

emulsions so far) a mirror should make a fine carrier for any of the

emulsions on the market, be it Liquid Light or Tetenal's Work

emulsion. In the instructions for the latter, I read that pre-coating

with gelatin may be a good idea where surfaces like glass are to be

coated (and you must, of course, ensure that the surface to be coated

is absolutely clean and free of grease).

<p>

I diffusely recall having also read in one catalogue about a liquid

emulsion that works the other way around: The image produced is

mirror-like. If you are interested in that, I'll try to find the

source.

If there is a film that you know well and with which your images look

good to you, use that film. You will know from previous shots how

that film reacts to more or less contrasty situations, and what its

other limits are. I have screwed up a lot of times because I thought I

had to have this or that special film or piece of equipment for a

particular opportunity. I have read that previous answer to your

question, which gives a lot of arguably useful hints which OTOH could

almost scare you off trying to shoot landscapes with your 35 mm

equipment. It is evidently true that with medium format or large

format negatives it is easier to produce prints with a rich tonality,

particularly at the extremes of the density scale. I doubt, however,

that you will print all your images in large formats, and with rather

small prints (up to 8 by 10), the loss in contrast is in my eyes

acceptable when compared to medium format. Also, 35 mm has the great

advantage of being affordable, and you need not take along three

sherpas to carry your equipment through the desert. So my suggestion

would be this:

1) Stick with a film you know and you have tested.

2) Don't let anybody scare you from shooting landscapes in 35 mm.