Sharpness Redux

Alan Smithee wrote:
 > Back to sharpness for a moment. Does pushing film inherantly reduce
 > sharpness? The reason I'm asking is I "had" to push a roll last week
--
 > really dimly lit room could not flash because a new born was present.
 > Normally I avoid pushing. I pushed TMY to 800. I added about 25 per
cent to
 > my clock. XTOL 1:1. The tonality incidentally was very good to
excellent,
 > but the sharpness was disappointing -- like lens fog almost.

Yes.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

Richard Knoppow wrote:
 > I am curious about the fog appearance. I think by lens fog you
 > mean flare, perhaps not. 25% increase in development is about one
 > stop for this film. It should not produce fogging. By sharpness is
 > often meant edge contrast or acutance, the term invented by Kodak for
 > it. This change in time should not make a big difference in the
 > acutance. Can you describe exactly what you are seeing in greater
 > detail?

Definately loss of edge details. Muddy. Almost out of focus. Like I'm
shooting through panty hose. Lens flare. Yes that's what I meant. The bright
areas are almost bleeding/haloing into the dark areas. It could be the lens
itself but I've never noticed this problem unless it's something new (It's a
Tamron 24mm not stellar but not crap either I've always got decent results
from it). The variable, I think, was my change in developing time and the
fact I've rated the film at 800. Not a big change, or so I thought. Using
fresh (two day old) XTOL. Very strange. Just ran a batch of TMY through
right before this roll using my normal time and no problems. I guess that's
why I was wondering about sharpness and pushing. I may switch back to TMAX
developer and see if my problem goes away. I'm a bit new to XTOL. Thx.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

UC wrote:
 > Alan Smithee wrote:
  >> Back to sharpness for a moment. Does pushing film inherantly reduce
  >> sharpness? The reason I'm asking is I "had" to push a roll last week
  >> really dimly lit room could not flash because a new born was present.
  >> Normally I avoid pushing. I pushed TMY to 800. I added about 25 per
  >> cent to my clock. XTOL 1:1. The tonality incidentally was very good
  >> to excellent, but the sharpness was disappointing -- like lens fog
  >> almost.
 >
 > Yes.

Would diluting my soup 1:2 or 1:3 make a difference to acutance (N.B. XTOL)?
If I wanted to push one or two stops should I stick with 400 speed films
like TMY or HP5 or should I "buy" an 800 or 1600 speed film. Thx.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

Alan Smithee wrote:
 > Back to sharpness for a moment. Does pushing film inherantly reduce
 > sharpness? The reason I'm asking is I "had" to push a roll last week
--
 > really dimly lit room could not flash because a new born was present.
 > Normally I avoid pushing. I pushed TMY to 800. I added about 25 per
cent to
 > my clock. XTOL 1:1. The tonality incidentally was very good to
excellent,
 > but the sharpness was disappointing -- like lens fog almost.

TMY pushes very poorly, as do most tabular-grain films.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

On 4/12/2005 10:42 AM UC spake thus:

 > Alan Smithee wrote:
  >
  >> Back to sharpness for a moment. Does pushing film inherantly reduce
  >> sharpness? The reason I'm asking is I "had" to push a roll last week
   >> [...]
  >> really dimly lit room could not flash because a new born was present.
  >> Normally I avoid pushing. I pushed TMY to 800. I added about 25 per cent to
  >> my clock. XTOL 1:1. The tonality incidentally was very good to excellent,
  >> but the sharpness was disappointing -- like lens fog almost.
 >
 > TMY pushes very poorly, as do most tabular-grain films.

Wait a minute--up to now, you've been telling us that it's impossible to push
film--*at all*. Now you seem to be qualifying it. Do we now hear you backing
down from that position?


--
"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon."

- Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by
the late Hunter S. Thompson<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 05:41:13 GMT, "Alan Smithee" <AlanSmithee.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote:

 >Back to sharpness for a moment. Does pushing film inherantly reduce
 >sharpness? The reason I'm asking is I "had" to push a roll last week --
 >really dimly lit room could not flash because a new born was present.
 >Normally I avoid pushing. I pushed TMY to 800. I added about 25 per cent to
 >my clock. XTOL 1:1. The tonality incidentally was very good to excellent,
 >but the sharpness was disappointing -- like lens fog almost.

  I wouldn't have pushed it that far. A 25% increase in development is more like 2.5
stops IMO. 5~10% should have been adequate. And yes, pushing always degrades the image
quality. The increase in granularity can cause the image to seem very unsharp.

JD - <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.puresilver.org" target="_blank">www.puresilver.org</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 02:13:07 GMT, "Alan Smithee" <somewhere RemoveThis @asdf.com> wrote:

 >Would diluting my soup 1:2 or 1:3 make a difference to acutance (N.B. XTOL)?
 >If I wanted to push one or two stops should I stick with 400 speed films
 >like TMY or HP5 or should I "buy" an 800 or 1600 speed film. Thx.

  I would use an EI 800 film such as Ilford's Delta 3200. Also I would recommend
using Microphen as opposed to Xtol. Or perhaps T-Max RS.

JD - <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.puresilver.org" target="_blank">www.puresilver.org</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

David Nebenzahl <nobody.DeleteThis@but.us.chickens> wrote:
: On 4/12/2005 10:42 AM UC spake thus:


Do yourself a favor and ignore the troll

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp.DeleteThis@deepthought.com
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

On 4/12/2005 11:12 AM Frank Pittel spake thus:

 > David Nebenzahl <nobody.RemoveThis@but.us.chickens> wrote:
  >
 > : On 4/12/2005 10:42 AM UC spake thus:
 >
 > Do yourself a favor and ignore the troll

Who the hell appointed you Lord High Executioner & NetCop?


--
"I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon."

- Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by
the late Hunter S. Thompson<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

OK, technical correction:

You can push film, but it doesn't get you anything, no real speed
increase.

It won't ruin Tri-X nearly so quickly as it will ruin T-grain films.


David Nebenzahl wrote:
 > On 4/12/2005 10:42 AM UC spake thus:
 >
  > > Alan Smithee wrote:
  > >
   > >> Back to sharpness for a moment. Does pushing film inherantly
reduce
   > >> sharpness? The reason I'm asking is I "had" to push a roll last
week
   > >> [...]
   > >> really dimly lit room could not flash because a new born was
present.
   > >> Normally I avoid pushing. I pushed TMY to 800. I added about 25
per cent to
   > >> my clock. XTOL 1:1. The tonality incidentally was very good to
excellent,
   > >> but the sharpness was disappointing -- like lens fog almost.
  > >
  > > TMY pushes very poorly, as do most tabular-grain films.
 >
 > Wait a minute--up to now, you've been telling us that it's impossible
to push
 > film--*at all*. Now you seem to be qualifying it. Do we now hear you
backing
 > down from that position?
 >
 >
 > --
 > "I know I will go to hell, because I pardoned Richard Nixon."
 >
 > - Former President Gerald Ford to his golf partners, as related by
 > the late Hunter S. Thompson<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

David Nebenzahl <nobody DeleteThis @but.us.chickens> wrote:
: On 4/12/2005 11:12 AM Frank Pittel spake thus:

: > David Nebenzahl <nobody DeleteThis @but.us.chickens> wrote:
: >
: > : On 4/12/2005 10:42 AM UC spake thus:
: >
: > Do yourself a favor and ignore the troll

: Who the hell appointed you Lord High Executioner & NetCop?


I did

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp DeleteThis @deepthought.com
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

In article <1113327776.337666.190040 RemoveThis @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"UC" <uraniumcommittee RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
 >
 > TMY pushes very poorly, as do most tabular-grain films.

  >>"Speedpushing does not work: it gives a steeper curve in the midrange
tonal scale, but no real gain in shadow speed."

Which one is it, Scarpathetic? You first post that pushing doesn't work
at all, then you say some films push poorly. Once again you prove that
you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Good thing this is being archived, so future readers will know to ignore
your pathetic attempts at getting attention.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux 

Agit Prop <Agit.DeleteThis@prop.com> wrote:
 >
 > Which one is it, Scarpathetic? You first post that pushing doesn't work
 > at all, then you say some films push poorly. Once again you prove that
 > you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
 >
As annoying as MS/UC can sometimes be, he has a pretty clear
meaning here.

1) Extending development has very little effect on film sensitivity.
A "pushed" underexposure is still underexposed.

2) Extending development can make underexposures easier to print.

3) TMX and TMY films do not appear to give as acceptable results when
underexposed as Tri-X 400 does.

Kodak claims exceptional underexposure latitude for all of
the T-max films. This appears to hold up really well in the
case of Tmax 3200 TMZ, but UC is hardly the only person
to observe that the slower T-max films seem to be particularly
unkind to underexposures.

Peter.
--
pirwin.DeleteThis@ktb.net<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Sharpness Redux