View Single Post

Old 03-05-2019   #35
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawarden View Post
Your results and mine couldn't be farther apart. I only exposed three rolls and found usable negatives at iso50. Who shoots at iso 6??

Here are three iPhone snaps of working prints that I never did anything with. They were made with modern Zeiss contrasty glass. They all would require dodging and burning, etc but I never took the prints farther than this stage. One of them is the dreaded P30 exposed at iso 50 with normal development (I just followed Ferrania's instructions for Ilfosol 3). I printed with a #2 filter on RC warm tone from Ilford, following their instructions for using their Multigrade developer.

In my experience most folks can't tell what film was used for various prints unless it's very obvious like with a super grainy Delta3200 or whatever.





All these look to me like the wet print equivalent of a starting point for a scan - too flat both in the shadows and highlights.

The problem with P40 is flexibility. If you want to make photos that look however the materials make them turn out, fine. You can make images that look like those you posted with film with a normal curve by modifying the exposure and development, and printing them this way. But you can't make photos taken with P40 have normal shadow and highlight values and contrast without an extraordinary amount of work, so you can't match existing work or tailor it to match the contrast curves of different families of paper.

Marty
  Reply With Quote