Dev-Film Combos: What are "the Old Standards"?

Alan Smithee wrote:

Alround developers like Ilford ID11 or Kodak D76 (same developer)
pure, or diluted 1+1, will give good to very good result with any
available film. Rate your filmspeed at half the manufacturer speed,
and develop 20 % less than indicated. That should be a good guess to
start with.

So TMY 400 rate at 200? Leave the toe in the dust in other words.


At a slower effective film speed you'd actually be giving
the toe areas more exposure/density. The greater density
from overexposing the highlight areas would be held back
by giving less development.

Of course I don't recommmend doing this based on someone's
blind advice. You should test your film for the processing
methods you use and arrive at your own effective film speed
for your own normal development time.

Alan Smithee wrote:

Alround developers like Ilford ID11 or Kodak D76 (same developer)
pure, or diluted 1+1, will give good to very good result with any
available film. Rate your filmspeed at half the manufacturer speed,
and develop 20 % less than indicated. That should be a good guess to
start with.

So TMY 400 rate at 200? Leave the toe in the dust in other words.


At a slower effective film speed you'd actually be giving
the toe areas more exposure/density. The greater density
from overexposing the highlight areas would be held back
by giving less development.

Of course I don't recommmend doing this based on someone's
blind advice. You should test your film for the processing
methods you use and arrive at your own effective film speed
for your own normal development time.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:19:20 GMT, "Alan Smithee"
wrote:

....
So TMY 400 rate at 200? Leave the toe in the dust in other words.



oct1704 from Lloyd Erlick,

I don't think I'd phrase it that way. I use TMY a lot,
and I've concluded it's an excellent 200 film that
happens to push one stop very well.

Shadow performance at 200 is excellent. Properly
exposed negs (at 200) yield very beautiful prints with
fine shadows. (I'm interested in how a film performs
for portraits; TMY at 200 works for me.)

regards.
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:19:20 GMT, "Alan Smithee"
wrote:

....
So TMY 400 rate at 200? Leave the toe in the dust in other words.



oct1704 from Lloyd Erlick,

I don't think I'd phrase it that way. I use TMY a lot,
and I've concluded it's an excellent 200 film that
happens to push one stop very well.

Shadow performance at 200 is excellent. Properly
exposed negs (at 200) yield very beautiful prints with
fine shadows. (I'm interested in how a film performs
for portraits; TMY at 200 works for me.)

regards.
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Alan Smithee wrote:

Alround developers like Ilford ID11 or Kodak D76 (same developer)
pure, or diluted 1+1, will give good to very good result with any
available film. Rate your filmspeed at half the manufacturer speed,
and develop 20 % less than indicated. That should be a good guess to
start with.

So TMY 400 rate at 200? Leave the toe in the dust in other words.


At a slower effective film speed you'd actually be giving
the toe areas more exposure/density. The greater density
from overexposing the highlight areas would be held back
by giving less development.

Of course I don't recommmend doing this based on someone's
blind advice. You should test your film for the processing
methods you use and arrive at your own effective film speed
for your own normal development time.

I guess the analogy I've been using is the pianist's hand. The keys on the
piano are the tones on the characteristic curve, and the contrast of "the
scene" being shot is the span of the pianist's fingers. The fingers can only
stretch from 3rd C to 4th C but can be placed anywhere on the keyboard. I
guess with this analogy there would be generally fewer lower/higher notes on
the keyboard. I guess it fails as an anology because the lower notes are
always being played...

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Alan Smithee wrote:

Alround developers like Ilford ID11 or Kodak D76 (same developer)
pure, or diluted 1+1, will give good to very good result with any
available film. Rate your filmspeed at half the manufacturer speed,
and develop 20 % less than indicated. That should be a good guess to
start with.

So TMY 400 rate at 200? Leave the toe in the dust in other words.


At a slower effective film speed you'd actually be giving
the toe areas more exposure/density. The greater density
from overexposing the highlight areas would be held back
by giving less development.

Of course I don't recommmend doing this based on someone's
blind advice. You should test your film for the processing
methods you use and arrive at your own effective film speed
for your own normal development time.

I guess the analogy I've been using is the pianist's hand. The keys on the
piano are the tones on the characteristic curve, and the contrast of "the
scene" being shot is the span of the pianist's fingers. The fingers can only
stretch from 3rd C to 4th C but can be placed anywhere on the keyboard. I
guess with this analogy there would be generally fewer lower/higher notes on
the keyboard. I guess it fails as an anology because the lower notes are
always being played...

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Alan Smithee wrote:

Alround developers like Ilford ID11 or Kodak D76 (same developer)
pure, or diluted 1+1, will give good to very good result with any
available film. Rate your filmspeed at half the manufacturer speed,
and develop 20 % less than indicated. That should be a good guess to
start with.

So TMY 400 rate at 200? Leave the toe in the dust in other words.


At a slower effective film speed you'd actually be giving
the toe areas more exposure/density. The greater density
from overexposing the highlight areas would be held back
by giving less development.

Of course I don't recommmend doing this based on someone's
blind advice. You should test your film for the processing
methods you use and arrive at your own effective film speed
for your own normal development time.

I guess the analogy I've been using is the pianist's hand. The keys on the
piano are the tones on the characteristic curve, and the contrast of "the
scene" being shot is the span of the pianist's fingers. The fingers can only
stretch from 3rd C to 4th C but can be placed anywhere on the keyboard. I
guess with this analogy there would be generally fewer lower/higher notes on
the keyboard. I guess it fails as an anology because the lower notes are
always being played...

Alan Smithee wrote:


I guess the analogy I've been using is the pianist's hand. The keys on the
piano are the tones on the characteristic curve, and the contrast of "the
scene" being shot is the span of the pianist's fingers. The fingers can only
stretch from 3rd C to 4th C but can be placed anywhere on the keyboard. I
guess with this analogy there would be generally fewer lower/higher notes on
the keyboard. I guess it fails as an anology because the lower notes are
always being played...

Nice analogy. And, of course, if you change developers, you've brought
in a different pianist to sit on the stool. Some might have smaller
hands but exquisite precision (Rodinal, perhaps), while others have an
exceptional span even though their scales or timing might not be as
perfect (Diafine). Which is "better" depends on the piece they're
playing, as Herr Rodinal will have trouble with a concerto that requires
a span of 14 or 15 semitones, but Sr. Diafine might seem clumsy with a
minuet written for teaching children. Each player is best with pieces
that suit his particular talents, on instruments (films) with the proper
charactistics for the piece.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Alan Smithee wrote:


I guess the analogy I've been using is the pianist's hand. The keys on the
piano are the tones on the characteristic curve, and the contrast of "the
scene" being shot is the span of the pianist's fingers. The fingers can only
stretch from 3rd C to 4th C but can be placed anywhere on the keyboard. I
guess with this analogy there would be generally fewer lower/higher notes on
the keyboard. I guess it fails as an anology because the lower notes are
always being played...

Nice analogy. And, of course, if you change developers, you've brought
in a different pianist to sit on the stool. Some might have smaller
hands but exquisite precision (Rodinal, perhaps), while others have an
exceptional span even though their scales or timing might not be as
perfect (Diafine). Which is "better" depends on the piece they're
playing, as Herr Rodinal will have trouble with a concerto that requires
a span of 14 or 15 semitones, but Sr. Diafine might seem clumsy with a
minuet written for teaching children. Each player is best with pieces
that suit his particular talents, on instruments (films) with the proper
charactistics for the piece.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Alan Smithee wrote:


I guess the analogy I've been using is the pianist's hand. The keys on the
piano are the tones on the characteristic curve, and the contrast of "the
scene" being shot is the span of the pianist's fingers. The fingers can only
stretch from 3rd C to 4th C but can be placed anywhere on the keyboard. I
guess with this analogy there would be generally fewer lower/higher notes on
the keyboard. I guess it fails as an anology because the lower notes are
always being played...

Nice analogy. And, of course, if you change developers, you've brought
in a different pianist to sit on the stool. Some might have smaller
hands but exquisite precision (Rodinal, perhaps), while others have an
exceptional span even though their scales or timing might not be as
perfect (Diafine). Which is "better" depends on the piece they're
playing, as Herr Rodinal will have trouble with a concerto that requires
a span of 14 or 15 semitones, but Sr. Diafine might seem clumsy with a
minuet written for teaching children. Each player is best with pieces
that suit his particular talents, on instruments (films) with the proper
charactistics for the piece.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.