Toe speed of TMAX 400 (was fridge and heat problems)

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...

:
: Maybe if you learned to properly expose and develop film you wouldn't be having the
: problems with the Tmax films.

: I do know how to expose and develop film properly. Part of that
: knowledge consists of knowing that some films are best suited for
: studio work while others are better suited for outdoor work. Some of
: us have actually read Kodak's technical publications and have
: undertood them. Others, such as you, just spout **** from your ass.

The dreck you used to have on your website says that you don't know how to
expose or develop film properly. Some of us have actually taken the time to properly
expose and develop film. We have also used the Tmax films outdoors and don't have the
problems that you claim occur. As always the proof is in the doing and you don't know
how.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: (Stefan Kahlert) wrote in message . com...
: 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics.
:
: TMY as well as TMX has significantly different curve shapes with
: different developers. Take a look at Kodak's publications.

: Different, but not 'significantly' different. Not enough different to
: become similar to Tri-X.

Why would I want a fine film like TMY to end up looking like Tri-X?? That would be an
unacceptable step backwards.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
"jjs" wrote in message
...

ooooh. He talks so much about it, I thought he did. What's he use?

Lately he uses Fuji Neopan 400 and Ilford Delta 400, which he thinks
are slightly better than Tri-X in tonality and sharpness/fine grain,
but with similar overall impressions. Both of these films have
pronounced shoulders, and both are utterly unlike TMY.

I'm very interested in using Neopan 400 and their Quickloads in 4x5. I had
feared it was another t-grain film so I just passed on it.

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
"jjs" wrote in message
...

ooooh. He talks so much about it, I thought he did. What's he use?

Lately he uses Fuji Neopan 400 and Ilford Delta 400, which he thinks
are slightly better than Tri-X in tonality and sharpness/fine grain,
but with similar overall impressions. Both of these films have
pronounced shoulders, and both are utterly unlike TMY.

I'm very interested in using Neopan 400 and their Quickloads in 4x5. I had
feared it was another t-grain film so I just passed on it.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : (Stefan Kahlert) wrote in message . com...
: : 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics.
: :
: : TMY as well as TMX has significantly different curve shapes with
: : different developers. Take a look at Kodak's publications.
:
: : Different, but not 'significantly' different. Not enough different to
: : become similar to Tri-X.
:
: Why would I want a fine film like TMY to end up looking like Tri-X?? That would be an
: unacceptable step backwards.

: Depends on what you mean. Tri-X have a superior characteristic curve
: for uncontrolled/outdoor work.

Sounds like you need to learn how to control the Tmax films. They have a wide exposure
latitude. Even your aproach of guess at the exposure and pray for the best method
can give you a printable negative if you develop it right.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : (Stefan Kahlert) wrote in message . com...
: : 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics.
: :
: : TMY as well as TMX has significantly different curve shapes with
: : different developers. Take a look at Kodak's publications.
:
: : Different, but not 'significantly' different. Not enough different to
: : become similar to Tri-X.
:
: Why would I want a fine film like TMY to end up looking like Tri-X?? That would be an
: unacceptable step backwards.

: Depends on what you mean. Tri-X have a superior characteristic curve
: for uncontrolled/outdoor work.

Sounds like you need to learn how to control the Tmax films. They have a wide exposure
latitude. Even your aproach of guess at the exposure and pray for the best method
can give you a printable negative if you develop it right.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : : (Stefan Kahlert) wrote in message . com...
: : : 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics.
: : :
: : : TMY as well as TMX has significantly different curve shapes with
: : : different developers. Take a look at Kodak's publications.
:
: : : Different, but not 'significantly' different. Not enough different to
: : : become similar to Tri-X.
: :
: : Why would I want a fine film like TMY to end up looking like Tri-X?? That would be an
: : unacceptable step backwards.
:
: : Depends on what you mean. Tri-X have a superior characteristic curve
: : for uncontrolled/outdoor work.
:
: Sounds like you need to learn how to control the Tmax films. They have a wide exposure
: latitude. Even your aproach of guess at the exposure and pray for the best method
: can give you a printable negative if you develop it right.



: The question is not getting a 'printable negative' but an ideal one.

Getting an ideal negative is why it's important to use the zone system with Tmax films.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : : (Stefan Kahlert) wrote in message . com...
: : : 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics.
: : :
: : : TMY as well as TMX has significantly different curve shapes with
: : : different developers. Take a look at Kodak's publications.
:
: : : Different, but not 'significantly' different. Not enough different to
: : : become similar to Tri-X.
: :
: : Why would I want a fine film like TMY to end up looking like Tri-X?? That would be an
: : unacceptable step backwards.
:
: : Depends on what you mean. Tri-X have a superior characteristic curve
: : for uncontrolled/outdoor work.
:
: Sounds like you need to learn how to control the Tmax films. They have a wide exposure
: latitude. Even your aproach of guess at the exposure and pray for the best method
: can give you a printable negative if you develop it right.



: The question is not getting a 'printable negative' but an ideal one.

Getting an ideal negative is why it's important to use the zone system with Tmax films.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : : Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : : : (Stefan Kahlert) wrote in message . com...
: : : : 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics.
: : : :
: : : : TMY as well as TMX has significantly different curve shapes with
: : : : different developers. Take a look at Kodak's publications.
:
: : : : Different, but not 'significantly' different. Not enough different to
: : : : become similar to Tri-X.
: : :
: : : Why would I want a fine film like TMY to end up looking like Tri-X?? That would be an
: : : unacceptable step backwards.
:
: : : Depends on what you mean. Tri-X have a superior characteristic curve
: : : for uncontrolled/outdoor work.
: :
: : Sounds like you need to learn how to control the Tmax films. They have a wide exposure
: : latitude. Even your aproach of guess at the exposure and pray for the best method
: : can give you a printable negative if you develop it right.
:
:
:
: : The question is not getting a 'printable negative' but an ideal one.
:
: Getting an ideal negative is why it's important to use the zone system with Tmax films.



: No, VFD is not necessary. Films with S-shaped curves provide ideal
: negatives with proper exposure and normal development. That's my
: point.

Your guess at the exposure and develop at whatever the film manufacturer suggests as
a starting point may give you printable negatives but only rarely will you get "ideal"
negatives from it. The only thing that's saving you is that you're bouncing the
highlights into the shoulder of the film. Then again having seen examples of the dreck
you call photographs I know that your standards are low enough that you'd be happy with
a negative most of us would throw away.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : : Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: : : Michael Scarpitti wrote:
: : : : (Stefan Kahlert) wrote in message . com...
: : : : 'Mastering' a film won't change its basic charachteristics.
: : : :
: : : : TMY as well as TMX has significantly different curve shapes with
: : : : different developers. Take a look at Kodak's publications.
:
: : : : Different, but not 'significantly' different. Not enough different to
: : : : become similar to Tri-X.
: : :
: : : Why would I want a fine film like TMY to end up looking like Tri-X?? That would be an
: : : unacceptable step backwards.
:
: : : Depends on what you mean. Tri-X have a superior characteristic curve
: : : for uncontrolled/outdoor work.
: :
: : Sounds like you need to learn how to control the Tmax films. They have a wide exposure
: : latitude. Even your aproach of guess at the exposure and pray for the best method
: : can give you a printable negative if you develop it right.
:
:
:
: : The question is not getting a 'printable negative' but an ideal one.
:
: Getting an ideal negative is why it's important to use the zone system with Tmax films.



: No, VFD is not necessary. Films with S-shaped curves provide ideal
: negatives with proper exposure and normal development. That's my
: point.

Your guess at the exposure and develop at whatever the film manufacturer suggests as
a starting point may give you printable negatives but only rarely will you get "ideal"
negatives from it. The only thing that's saving you is that you're bouncing the
highlights into the shoulder of the film. Then again having seen examples of the dreck
you call photographs I know that your standards are low enough that you'd be happy with
a negative most of us would throw away.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------