Re: RLF COMPARISON

From: Raven Weiss ^lt;ravenweiss@yahoo.com>
Date: 09/28/05-03:17:31 PM Z
Message-id: <20050928211731.56804.qmail@web33405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hello Bob,
 
For night images lit by the full moon, I only use HP5+ (sheets) and Delta 3200 (rollfilm). The HP5+ is at least a full stop slower that the Delta 3200. So, I use HP5+ when there is some ambient street lighting to add to the moonlight. In the middle of the desert, I can only use Delta 3200.
 
Both films are developed in PyroCat HD on a Jobo, and printed (Pd or Kallitypes) on a Nuarc 26-1K
 
Examples can be seen at:
www.ExposeTheShadows.com
 
Sincerely,
Mike
 
 

Jim Strain <jstrain@iquest.net> wrote:
Bob: I know you asked specifically about the Ilford films, but my
experience in low light with 8x10 TMAX 400 has been first rate. I do print
pt/pd. Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "BOB KISS"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 12:05 PM
Subject: RLF COMPARISON

> DEAR LIST,
> This should be "on-topic" as I want to shoot some night photos in 8X10 and
> print them in PT/PD.
> I have read and confirmed 8X10 Kodak Tri-X has significant low intensity
> reciprocity law failure. I believe T-Max 400 has less LIRLF. Does anyone
> know from experience the LIRLF of Ilford HP-5 PLUS and how it compares to
> Tri-X and T-Max 400?
> Also, for alt processes, how does Ilford's new Delta sheet films compare
> with their wonderful HP5-Plus.
> CHEERS!
> BOB
>
> Please check my website: http://www.bobkiss.com/
>
>
>> >
>>
>
>
Received on Wed Sep 28 15:17:57 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 10/18/05-01:13:02 PM Z CST