--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Nick ... > > I think the real test is to push a 400 speed film > three stops and take > the same or a similar shot using a film like Delta > 3200, use the same > EI, and process it in the recommended developer, > which is Ilford's DDX. > Then compare grain, tonality, and detail.
That's one reason that I said that it was the best film/dev combo for ~my~ situation. Ilford Delta 3200 takes a couple of minutes longer than the HP5+, both at 3200 same dev, to finish. Not only that, I swear that the grain on the Delta at 3200 is much worse than the grain of hp5+ at the same iso. Another thing, according to the box of Kodak Pro 3200 TMax that I have here, it is "nominally rated at EI 1000." Is not the same thing true with Ilford's Delta? So there really is not anything such as a "true" 3200 film, right? You just don't have to push the Delta as far as the hp5+. > As for your comment that a hockey match isn't a good > subject because > "There is no way that a person can get all of the > tones on a standard > hockey rink to expose correctly because there is > simply too much > difference, and the film has not enough latitude" is > simply not true. > If you expose for the shadows and develop for the > highlights, you can > get the details in the black and prevent the > highlights from burning > out. You may get a little compression in the middle > tones, but your > negs - and, therefore, your prints and your scans - > will look a whole > lot better. Pushing a film will automatically cause > a reduction in > shadow detail, so you've got a double-whammy going > here. I work at a paper, I understand what you're saying; but it takes me long enough to turn in a photo already! <G> > Just out of curiosity, how did you meter the arena > and the scenes you > were shooting? Did you actually measure the shadows > and the highlights, > or did you put the camera on automatic, plug in the > flash, and shoot > away? The situation on the rink cries out for a > spot meter and > controlled development. When shooting available with my fast lenses, I'll spot meter off the ice and open up one stop; also checking the darkest parts of their uniforms to make sure it is no more than one stop under what the meter reads as correct. When shooting with slower lenses (ie- my 300/4.5) and flash I'll set the camera to 1/250 @ f4.5, their is enough light at this particular rink so that at that setting (with 3200iso) the meter reads dead in the middle when spotted off the ice (which means the scene is one [one-half] stop under), and I set the flash to TTL with one-stop overexpose dialed in. (Actually, since the af500ftz's flash meter only registers up to 1600iso I don't have to dial in any extra overexposure at 3200) > And please take what I'm about to say in the spirit > it's intended - just > because the photos run every week in your local > paper does not make them > very good. It makes them acceptable for their > intended purpose. There > are other photos on your site that put these to > shame, and some are > amongst the best sports photos I've seen. These > hockey photos are not > up to your higher standards. Wow, thank you for the compliment. So what would you suggest that I do differently? Also, keep in mind that these were among the first hockey games that I've ever shot. I've shot several since, and I think the quality has gone up considerably. I'll have to scan some of the newer ones for my site soon, if I get a second free. :P Nick Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
