I don't know if people care or not ... but I'm still impressed by Fomapan, both 200 and 400 (in 35 mm).
I have also been partial to Xtol and there has not been as much documentation for Xtol in its various dilutions.
I do a "Picture a Week" (PAW) and this week has been using Fomapan and Xtol 1:2.
[url="http://dlridings.se/paw/2006/25.html"]Fomapan and Xtol 1:2[/url]
That was for 13 minutes. All in all, I might either go with shorter times (11-12 minutes) or probably a little higher ISO in order to get the negatives I like (a little thinner). This was shot at EI 400.
I made a mistake on the roll and underexposed one frame by 3 stops. The negative is still useful. I will probably end up being one of those who rate it higher rather than lower.
Nice film, no matter how you look at it.
Daniel
I have also been partial to Xtol and there has not been as much documentation for Xtol in its various dilutions.
I do a "Picture a Week" (PAW) and this week has been using Fomapan and Xtol 1:2.
[url="http://dlridings.se/paw/2006/25.html"]Fomapan and Xtol 1:2[/url]
That was for 13 minutes. All in all, I might either go with shorter times (11-12 minutes) or probably a little higher ISO in order to get the negatives I like (a little thinner). This was shot at EI 400.
I made a mistake on the roll and underexposed one frame by 3 stops. The negative is still useful. I will probably end up being one of those who rate it higher rather than lower.
Nice film, no matter how you look at it.
Daniel
