> A while back you said you liked Delta 100 but 400 was your
> "money" film. I'm
> thinking of trying out Delta/DD-X before it's gone, and was
> wondering why
> you preferred 400 over 100. Just speed?
This is the part that makes me most uncomfortable with the
Ilford news. I can change paper/chemistry, but film/developer is
much more difficult.
Delta 100 is amazingly fine grained and has incredible tonal
depth. However, I've always struggled with a muddy Zone III-IV.
For some reason, in my development process, I'm able to get a
nice linear tonal response until the Zone III-IV area where I
lose seperations. Everything is fine above and below that point.
To be fair, when scanned it's ok, and when I use a
paper/developer which expands these zones I'm ok too. The
emulsion is very "edgy" as are other T-grained films. (The
effect is not unlike a tiny bit of unsharp mask)
Delta 400 really is my "money film". Even though it is slightly
more grainy than Delta 100, it is well behaved throughout the
entire tonal range. Delta 400/DD-X is highly pushable. I usually
shoot it at ISO 800 with little to no visible difference to it
being shot at ISO 400. I tend to slightly overdevelop the film
to give it a tiny contrast boost which allows me to go down 1/2
grade on paper contrast. This also counteracts the OM's OTF
metering which marginly underexposes too. When shot at ISO
1600, D400/DD-X give the high-speeds without the grain. Tonal
curves slither around some at 1600, but nothing a little bit of
split-grade printing or paper-flashing can't take care of.
Unless you have an expanse of sky or something, you probably
will not see the grain of an ISO 1600 picture in 8x10 size.
I've blown up ISO 1600 shots to over 20x24 size and the grain is
perfectly acceptable.
Speaking of tonalities, my main reason for absolutely loving
Delta 400 is the extended red sensitivity. Skin tones will raise
about one zone. Combined with an orange filter, skin blemishes,
zits, wrinkles, moles and scars simply disappear. Realistic?
Nope. Perfect for portraiture? You bet! For landscapes, stick
a red filter on the lens and the effect is greater than with
many other films.
> I do some digital, but
> as mentioned previously I spend my entire working day on
> computers (building
> software) and the thought of doing all my photography that way
> is dreary.
There's something liberating about working in a darkroom. Of
course, it helps to have the right tools. For me, the darkroom
is almost a haven from the real world. I can shut the door,
turn the music on (jazz or classical is good) and work the
serendipity. You see, with Photoshop, we know "what we want" and
force the picture to accomodate our wishes. In the darkroom each
negative will present different opportunities to you and will
always suprise you with interpretations that hadn't occured to
you. It's a rare event when I print a negative the same way
twice. Each time I see something new happen. Change
paper/developer and something else emerges from the emulsion.
Here's an analogy:
Digital Printing = Talking to a friend on the telephone.
Darkroom Printing = Talking to a friend over coffee.
AG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|