>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:12:57 -0500, "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> said:
jal> At 03:04 PM 8/11/03, Chris Barker wrote:
>> But ... I give up with the film. What ISO were you setting on the
>> camera, and what did it say on the box that you took the film out of?
jal> TMax P3200 is a multi-speed film with a nominal ISO rating of 800-1000
jal> depending on exact chemistry. It's intended to be "pushed" and was
jal> designed for push-2, hence it's name: P3200. Based on its behavior
jal> at push-1 (EI 1600) in the past I don't believe I'd want to use it at
jal> its nominal speed. At EI 1600 it's much like Tri-X Pan in grain and
jal> latitude. Latitude would be much too wide at its rated speed (ISO
jal> 800) resulting in much lower contrast than I care for. Grain
jal> increases and latitude narrows slightly at EI 3200 compared to EI 1600.
jal> In this case (the glassworks) I metered various parts of the factory
jal> and used it at push-2 (EI 3200). As a result it required push-2
jal> developing by a full-service pro lab and incurred an additional cost.
jal> I don't recommend using TMax P3200 outdoors in daylight. It handles
jal> much better under man-made artificial lighting indoors. Ilford makes
jal> a very similar B&W film, Delta 3200. It also has a nominal speed
jal> rating of ISO 800, and like TMZ it is intended to be pushed. If
jal> you've given up on TMZ, you might try the Ilford. I used a couple
jal> rolls of the Ilford and went back to TMZ primarily because I try to
jal> use it at EI 1600 indoors if possible, and want "Tri-X" type
jal> appearance it renders at that speed.
When I was in college I was shooting sports with my -2n and a Tamron
60-300/3.8-5.4 lens. Obviously, it was FAR too slow to be shooting
sports, but what's a poor college student to do. Now that I've got the
lens for it, too bad I don't have the sports to shoot!
I was shooting P3200 at an approximate EI of 6400. It was approximate
because the ISO dial on the -2n only goes to 1600 and I was shooting
at approximately 2 stops underexposed on the meter. I did the
processing myself. The negatives were usually pretty thin and there
was a pronounced grain. But it was a very even grain that didn't look
all that bad on newsprint. I always found TMax to yield very pleasing
results in print.
Johnie
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|