jim_shanesy

No, the "dev time" does not change. It is a function of temperature, not exposure. The time/temperature matrix is printed on each film packet.

Either turn up the fill light or move the main light to throw more light on her right eye.

For $20.00 I don't suppose you can go wrong, but the attributes of 64T which set it apart and make it for me the finest (in fact, for me the only acceptable) color film made are, in order of importance: 1) low contrast 2) long scale 3) perfectly (i.e. not saturated) realistic color balance. I personally wouldn't give a plugged nickel for any chrome which negated any of those features at all. I wouldn't want to waste the time shooting it when I could be using real EPY.

The behavior you describe sounds like the results I get with Panthermic 777, a p-phenylenediamine/glycin/metol concoction.

 

Is it a one shot developer? Or do you dilute what he sends you to make a working solution which is replenished?

Read Michael Smith's paper at http://www.michaelandpaula.com. Click on the Azo link at the bottom, then Other Writings. A link to Developing by Inspection is about halfway down the page. I can't post a link to it because their site uses damnable frames.

Use Kodak EPY (64T) with an 85B filter. You'll get nice scale with no trace of the harshness of daylight chrome films, and perfect color balance.

 

My last choice would be Velvia. It has too much contrast and turns nature's lovely green into the green of the plastic leprechaun hats you see in bars on St. Patrick's day.

Spanning parts of Virginia, Kentucky and West Virginia:

 

http://www.southernregion.fs.fed.us/gwj/

 

In Central Kentucky: http://www.redrivergorge.com/direct.html

 

The Red River gorge is particularly fertile ground for photographers.

The question was, and I assume still is: What is, and I quote, "...the sharpest, finest grain 8 x 10 film?". The answer is: "Eastman Kodak's Technical Pan". This is true regardless of the application. Tech Pan is being discontinued, but it comes in 8 x 10 sheets. With an RMS granularity of 3, nothing else is as grainless. It's shockingly expensive, so unless your application really needs it, (like astronomy or creation of a hologram) you're probably better off with something a little less specialized.

 

Running second would be Efke PL25 available from J&C Photo. I could be mistaken, but I don't think that Gigabit film comes in sheet film sizes. In third place would be Kodak's TMX, 100TMax.

Kodak Technical Pan. Nothing else even comes close.

Underexposing any film will produce inky, black shadows with no detail. So in answer to the question "How much can I err on the side of underexposure?" I'd have to say "Not at all...there's simply got to be enough light to yield good shadow detail".

 

However, on the side of overexposure there's a lot you can do with certain films. Ektachrome 64T has as long a scale as Tri-X, and responds beautifully to zone system controls. Kodak Pro 100T (NOT Portra 100T - the film I'm talking about here has been discontinued) had an even longer scale than that. I've made negatives with it in the National Cathedral of shadowed ceiling vaults and stained glass windows with sun streaming through them (SBR 13? 14?) and gotten detail everywhere. I've seen this C-41 film occasionally on Ebay. Kodak Pro 100T (PRT).

 

The black and white film I've found to have the most "latitude" (i.e. expandability) is Kodak 400TMax, TMY. But again, as with the color films, you can't underexpose and expect good results.

TMax 100 doesn't do well in PMK, but the 400 speed TMax yields marvelous negatives in just about any other pyrogallol or pyrocatechin based developer. I haven't tried it with PMK. But in ABC, Pyrocat-HD or any of the Patrick Gainer pyro formulae, it's just incredible.

There are only a few "nevers" in my list of personal photographic rules. But one of them is definitely "NEVER do business with Adorama". They've proven to be how little they care for their customers.

The answers to your questions are "no" and "no". There's nothing like else like Technical Pan, just as there was no substitute for Super XX Pan or Kodak's Pro Line of color negative films, or Azo. At least we still have Azo, for a while anyway.

Scott's right. The recent Ilfochromes I've had made from Ektachrome 64T transparencies are utter crap compared to Frontier prints from Portra 160VC negatives. And the Frontier prints are dirt cheap in comparison.

 

I think the best images are obtained by scanning good chromes and then having them digitally printed by a custom lab, but it's unbelievable how good a print you can now get from negatives printed on a mass production digital processor.

 

I hadn't shot any color for a long time when I was asked to do some pix of my daughter's soccer team. I used Portra 160VC. I was stunned when I got the contact sheets back. I'll continue to use 64T for my personal color work, but for anything I'm paid to do for someone else I'll use negative film.

My experience is similar to Jay's, but after shooting the many hundreds of sheets of different films I alighted upon one which I feel is so far and away superior to all others that I have used nothing else since discovering it. Naturally it's the most expensive black and white film available. I have an infallible ability in this regard. I can pick out the most expensive shoes or suit off the rack blindfolded. However, I pay for it because it allows me to easily and consistently make negatives which print beautifully almost without effort, and no other film does this.

 

I'm therefore very worried that Kodak will suddenly and without warning discontinue TMY. I don't like Ilford films as much, but they do seem committed to continued production of film, unlike Kodak. So I may switch back to HP5+ just for that reason. It doesn't expand as well and the reciprocity characteristics are horrendous compared to a T-grain film, but if Kodak is not interested in committing to continued film production, we should move all our eggs over to the basket of the company that is.

777 is available from Bluegrass Packaging Industries in Louisville, Ky. Phone: (502)-425-6442. They have no e-commerce capability. You must arrange for shipment over the phone.

Chrome, on Q Street, is also good. They can make you a high resolution drum scan. Good luck.

Penn is ok for family snapshots from point and shoots and I've even had some decent medium format prints out of them, but I couldn't say that their processing is on a professional level.

 

For color processing in the DC area, The Positive Image is unequaled, in my opinion. http://www.positiveimage.net/index.htm

 

I've also heard good things about the National Geographic Custom Lab, but I've never used them. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/labs/

 

I can vouch for The Positive Image from experience. Superb. They never abbreviate any of their film development processes and it shows.

 

Hope this helps.

What did you develop it in and how much base fog did you get?

Fuji's ok, but try Kodak 64T instead. More natural color balance.

Erratum: Make that 'CoHiba' cigars.

Kodak has never made Tri-X in Readyloads. The auction you're talking about is for old 4 x 5 Graphic Film Packs.

 

I'll bet you a week's pay that this stuff is at least 40 years old. Don't even think about it. They even have a discussion of how real "artistes" of the cinema genre used to pre-fog their film. Why would they put such a spiel in their listing? I'll bet it's because this film is incredibly fogged. You have no idea how this film has been stored all these years.

 

If you want something that gets better with age, bid on Cobiba cigars or a vintage Chateau Lafite Rothschild. Film just gets fogged as it gets older.

"Of course, the example that I saw was printed very well on Azo, which was developed in Amidol, so YMMV."

 

I've also gotten beautiful results with enlarged negatives on Bergger paper developed in Dektol using TMY rollfilm developed in 777.

I second Jay's recommendation. I don't use TP, but when I did I got some spectacular results with TD-3. The formula is proprietary, but I think it has pyrocatechin in it. It's definitely a staining, compensating developer and it wrings every last drop of tonality out of TP with truly incredible (I don't use that word lightly) sharpness. I've blown 4 x 5 TP negatives up to 16 x 20 and the enlargements were sharper than 4 x 5 Tri-X/HC110 contact prints of the same scene. And there was absolutely no sign of any grain, even when viewed under an 8x loupe.

PMK yields negatives with a lot of fog. Some of that is base fog (reduced silver). Some of it is contributed by the general stain. It doesn't matter. Fog is fog is fog.

 

It might not be a bad thing, though. You won't know until you print them.