AlexFischer
Hello,
I test-exposed a Kodak Ektagraphic film and developed it in Acutol, but unfortunately only achieved a yield of around 3 ASA.
The result, however, is impressive and holds its own against Copex and the like.
Have you carried out similar tests? What have been your experiences?
P.S. I’ve posted a picture in the gallery that I admit isn’t particularly good, along with a cropped enlargement that isn’t much better in terms of quality – perhaps this will inspire someone to have a go.
Best regards,
Alex
MirkoBoeddecker
Unfortunately, with a yield of only about 3 ASA
That’s exactly why you need Gigabit, Nanospeed or Adotech.
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
Alex,
Have you ever tried processing the Ektagraphic in Nanospeed developer? If so, it should theoretically have a speed of 11 DIN (10 ASA).
Otherwise, I agree with Mirko.
Roland
AlexFischer
@Roland
@Mirko
I’ll bear the Nanospeed developer in mind and give it a go with my next order.
3 ASA is, of course, not much. But when you consider the intended use of Copex and similar films – namely high-resolution shots of landscapes and architecture – the 3 ASA becomes a relative figure.
A tripod and mirror lock-up are essential anyway. And whether the shot is taken at 1/30 sec. or 1/2 sec. doesn’t really matter.
The only potential issue is the orthochromatic sensitisation, but perhaps that particular look is exactly what’s desired.
Definitely an alternative.
Best regards,
Alex
Gast
Alex,
I get that, but the real strength of the Gigabit, the Spur Sets or the Adotech is that, with perfect mid-tone fidelity and normal contrast, they can get these films down to 20 or 40 ASA.
The Acufine or the HC 100 simply can’t do that, even if it is possible to ‘soften’ the film with them, as you put it.
The film stock itself isn’t any cheaper with Kodak than with Copex.
If you like the look of Kodak and want more speed, give Imagespeed or Nanospeed a try.
Otherwise, we’re on the same page. I also mention in the CMS that the speed shouldn’t be any higher, because only at f/1.4 can a lens come close to resolving what the film is capable of, and in normal light I’m already down to 1/500 of a second...
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
A tripod and mirror lock-up are essential in any case. And whether the shot is taken at 1/30 sec. or 1/2 sec. doesn’t really matter.
[right][post="6252"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
The question then naturally arises as to whether one should try with all one’s might to squeeze the maximum performance out of a postage stamp, or whether it would be better to mount a slightly larger-format camera on the same tripod. With 6x6 and above, you’ll outshine even the most amazing documentary film without breaking a sweat.
Martin
MirkoBoeddecker
Martin,
That’s precisely why we only offer the CMS on 35mm film.
These processes (high resolution) are for those who specifically want nothing more than medium format.
After all, MF cameras are heavier and bulkier, and you get fewer images on the film, etc.
So anyone who’s decided to get the most out of 35mm uses these films.
Anyone who doesn’t mind lugging around MF or GF gear just laughs it off.
And don’t forget: if you only have a 35mm scanner, you can’t do MF.
Best regards,
Mirko
Stagirit
At a pinch, I can always take cover behind my Mamiya.
If you blow up a 35mm print to 24x30 (which would be a factor of 100:1), it loses a significant amount of contrast; low-contrast films are out of the question in that case.
Gast
Martin,
Credit where credit is due (medium and large format), but I also find it simply marvellous when I can print 30x40 cm from 35mm negatives without noticing any significant film grain.
I’m thinking of hikes, folk festivals and the like, where this format is simply ideal.
Roland
Stagirit
You can certainly go overboard.
When we went hiking with my father, we’d often take along the Nikon F3 with its lenses, a Mamiya 645 and, occasionally, the Master Technika. That’s when it pays to have three sons (or packhorses).
And, of course, the little one for branches sticking out into the frame.
A fine grain is great*, but the negative still has to be printable, and at some point the density and enlarger reach their limits.
A twin-lens reflex camera is brilliant for hikes and folk festivals. I can only recommend it; after a short adjustment period, it’s really good fun.
*Personally, though, I rather like a subtle grain; that’s what gives the pictures their real charm. Let them see that it’s a photograph, with all its rough edges and imperfections, and not too perfect.
AlexFischer
Hello,
I didn’t mean to start a religious war about MF, GF, etc.
Personally, I own about 40 cameras; they range from the Canon Demi to the Mamiya C330.
The film stock ranges from Orwo X-ray screen film and old Foma F21 to high-tech materials like Imagelink.
And I never cease to be fascinated by how you can conjure up excellent results (and total flops) from all these materials.
So you end up trying things like softening Ektagraphic or pushing HP5 to 6400.
And I can’t help but grin from ear to ear when some digital snapper (Yakumo 5000 megapixel 12x zoom) sees a print from a 5-euro eBay camera.
Although Stagirit is, of course, absolutely right that nothing can be replaced by an even larger format. :lol:
Best regards
Alex
Wolfgg
Anyone who owns a car knows that, when it comes to maximum performance, increasing the engine capacity is still the simplest and healthiest option. Even our ancestors knew that if you want to bring the best raw material into your laboratory, you should take the camera that’s just about the heaviest you can carry. Everyone simply needs to be clear about what they’re aiming for. If all you care about is sharpness in enlargements, you can make targeted use of ‘image-impact’ films like grain and high-contrast films, and be happy with, say, TMax400/Rodinal and KB. Conversely, for those who are smitten with warm-toned polyfilms and want to literally overwhelm the viewer with the tonal values hidden within, the rule is strict: for films around 21 DIN, a maximum enlargement scale of 4 linear; for skilfully softened line films, a maximum of 8 linear. Here, the minimum image format is therefore always dictated by the size of the final product, and the black-and-white photographer reaches the limits of ‘standard films’ as early as 13x18cm.
