MF & Technical Pan, looking for optimum sharpness

In article ,
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
(jjs) wrote in message
...
In article , John
wrote:

Try TMX and Rodinal 1:100 for 19min at 70F

Thanks, John. I will consider it when I finish off the Agfa APX.

Acutol and FP4 will obliterate TMX and Rodinal.

The subject was how to get apparent (perceived) sharpness via edge effects
from TM films. Acutol vs. Rodinal is a religious argument that I won't even
entertain.

TMX film, like other T-Max films, has poor edge sharpness.

TM is crap. Pure and simple CRAP! But that's easy to see. Funny how many
people's perception follow's Kodak's corporate literature rather than
seeing with their own eyes. Who says the blind can't take pictures?

(jjs) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
(jjs) wrote in message
...
In article , John
wrote:

Try TMX and Rodinal 1:100 for 19min at 70F

Thanks, John. I will consider it when I finish off the Agfa APX.

Acutol and FP4 will obliterate TMX and Rodinal.

The subject was how to get apparent (perceived) sharpness via edge effects
from TM films. Acutol vs. Rodinal is a religious argument that I won't even
entertain.

TMX film, like other T-Max films, has poor edge sharpness.

TM is crap. Pure and simple CRAP! But that's easy to see. Funny how many
people's perception follow's Kodak's corporate literature rather than
seeing with their own eyes. Who says the blind can't take pictures?



But I'm not the only one who's saying this! Anchell and Troop say it too!

"Philippe Lauwers" wrote in message li.nl...
Hello,

The last few weeks I've been shooting landscapes with a Hasselblad 503CW,
using a CFE 2.8/80 mm- lens and TMX. Now that I've finally decided on how to
build my compositions, I'm considering to start all over again using
Technical Pan. For most pictures, the lens is stopped down to f11 or more.

As you probably suspect from the combination medium-format / Technical Pan,
I'll be trying to get the most out of my camera/film combination in terms of
detail, sharpness, ...

The technical data-sheet of my lens states that Depth Of Field data are
'calculated for a blur circle of 60 µm and do nog include the effect of lens
aberrations. For very critical photography and great enlargements this blur
will be visible.'
(http://www.hasselblad.se/Archive/doc...oductsheets/CF
E80.pdf). Further ause of DOF-data for apertures of 2 f-stops larger is
suggested.

Kodak claims that ther Technical Pan film
(http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...p255/p255.jhtm
l?id=0.1.18.14.21.22.16&lc=en) has an RMS-granularity of 5 (developed in
Technidol, of which I have a few bottles craving for film in the darkroom).
As far as I can figure out, the RMS-granularity is a standard deviation
(been confronted with rms-values more then a few times throughout my
education), but I don't know of what. There must be a link to the size of
film-grain, but to me it's still a missing link.

My question is not so much wether, for my specific case, I should take in
account the 2-stop correction for DOF-data Hasselblad recommends. Most of
all I would like to understand why (of maybe why not) I should consider this
correction.

Thx to all (and please accept my excuses for cross-posting),

Philippe

I have 18 rolls of Tech Pan for sale. This is
medium format 120 film. All expired 3/2004. I
bought direct from a kodak dealer. it was kept
in their refridgerator.

Make offer.

jjs wrote:

TM is crap. Pure and simple CRAP! But that's easy to see. Funny how many
people's perception follow's Kodak's corporate literature rather than
seeing with their own eyes. Who says the blind can't take pictures?

Even funnier perhaps how some people are unable, no matter how hard they
try, to get very good results using a simple film like TMax, and then
complain about others who do.

In article , "Q.G. de Bakker"
wrote:

jjs wrote:

TM is crap. Pure and simple CRAP! But that's easy to see. Funny how many
people's perception follow's Kodak's corporate literature rather than
seeing with their own eyes. Who says the blind can't take pictures?

Even funnier perhaps how some people are unable, no matter how hard they
try, to get very good results using a simple film like TMax, and then
complain about others who do.

I've yet to see a TMax image that has the certain characteristics I
particularly like. That does not mean I've never seen a good image made
with TMax.

"jjs" wrote in message
...
In article , "Q.G. de Bakker"
wrote:

jjs wrote:

TM is crap. Pure and simple CRAP! But that's easy to see. Funny how
many
people's perception follow's Kodak's corporate literature rather than
seeing with their own eyes. Who says the blind can't take pictures?

Even funnier perhaps how some people are unable, no matter how hard they
try, to get very good results using a simple film like TMax, and then
complain about others who do.

I've yet to see a TMax image that has the certain characteristics I
particularly like. That does not mean I've never seen a good image made
with TMax.

You mean, it's "CRAP!" because it's not the other film? Or was there
something more substantial there?

In article , "MikeWhy"
wrote:

You mean, it's "CRAP!" because it's not the other film? Or was there
something more substantial there?

IMHO it is crap compared to, for example, the old Agfa APX 100 in Rodinal
from 1:25 to 1:150, depending on contrast range. Grain has certain
virtues. And I repeat, IMHO. But you knew this. Why do you ask?

jjs wrote:

You mean, it's "CRAP!" because it's not the other film? Or was there
something more substantial there?

IMHO it is crap compared to, for example, the old Agfa APX 100 in Rodinal
from 1:25 to 1:150, depending on contrast range. Grain has certain
virtues. And I repeat, IMHO.

Yes, in your honest opinion. In my opinion, Agfa films will not be missed
when they're gone soon.

But saying that is not quite the same as saying they are crap. And even less
saying that people who do like Agfa films are blind, and idiots because they
blindly believe whatever that company tells them to believe about their
products.

In my honest opinion, people who say things like that are ...
Anyway, i don't see how adding "IMHO" helps.