TX vs PanF+ comparison.

S

stevew

Guest
Was doing some experimenting today. I have never shot PanF+, usually just shoot TX.

Shot PanF+ @ EI 25 (HC110 1:100 14 min). TX @ EI 250(HC110 1:63 14 min).

Scanned at 4000PPI, enlarged to 100% and cropped section.
 
My impression is that you used a higher shutter speed and/or f-stop for the Tri-X. It's clearly a sharper picture and all else being equal, that shouldn't be. The Pan-F+ should do better than that, IMO.

Walker
 
doubs43 said:
My impression is that you used a higher shutter speed and/or f-stop for the Tri-X. It's clearly a sharper picture and all else being equal, that shouldn't be. The Pan-F+ should do better than that, IMO.

Walker
Click to expand...
It is. I use both PanF and TriX on the daily basis. Both have their use, but if I want sharpness, detail, and tonality it's PanF & a tripod. If I want handholdability, then I either shoot TriX for Diafine or HP5+ for DD-X.

This isn't an "all things being equal" comparison ;)
 
BrianPhotog said:
It is. I use both PanF and TriX on the daily basis. Both have their use, but if I want sharpness, detail, and tonality it's PanF & a tripod. If I want handholdability, then I either shoot TriX for Diafine or HP5+ for DD-X.

This isn't an "all things being equal" comparison ;)
Click to expand...

Then I fail to see any point to the non-comparison.
 
Film test.

Film test.

I was primarily doing a granularity study and narrowing down the dev time and EI. The crops are a 2.5" long section on 8.5x11"

Sometimes TX though grainy can actually appear sharper than a fine grain film. Those nice big sharp grains really stand out.
 
Poptart said:
I shot a squirrel today but I really wanted to shoot a moose.
Click to expand...

LOL

Well, of course you can't directly compare them, but i see the point of the "comparison". Or, at least it makes sense to me. I rarely use a tripod, and for daily use seems better to use a faster film allowing for better lens performance and less motion blur than a slow and sharper/grain-free film. But i kinda knew this already:)

However on the examples the grain seems to be the same. I wonder if the scans are limited by the scanning quality/resolution instead of the film's grains. (You scanned the film, not prints, right?)
 
For me, when using Pan F+, "under normal working circumstances" DOES mean using a tripod. To each his own, but it never ceases to amaze me that someone would use a slow film, capable of great resolution, long tonal scale and fine grain and throw away all those advantages by not using a tripod.

Earl
 
Another problem with this comparison is that you are scanning both negs directly. So 4000 dpi is your limiting factor. Try making a darkroom enlargement of the same part of the negative at something like 20X enlargement factor and then scan the print on a flatbed scanner. The differences should be more apparent and relevant.
 
Its simple really. As you have said Tri-x is an incredibly sharp film (if properly handled and developed) and is the staple diet of rangefinders. Use Pan-F in the controlled environment of studio work if grain free massive blow ups are your thing, but if you seek the freedom that hand held reportage gives then Tri-x is it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Poptart said:
I shot a squirrel today but I really wanted to shoot a moose.
Click to expand...

well this is the dumbest statement I've heard yet, everyone knows you can't compare the two unless the moose is on a tripod :D.



Todd
 
200% crops

200% crops

Wow, I'm glad I didn't post at photo.net. I would have gotten hammered. :)

I was really just checking to see if the reduced granularity was worth the effort. People complain about Panf+ being contrasty so I shot a contrasty scene and controlled the development with high dilution. It's true that you can run into a tripod situation if you use the film and a benefit of 35rf is hand holding, although with a good lens, around f4 is a sharp aperature.

Here's 200% crops to show the grain difference. This would be a huge print.
 
OTOH, Daniel, with small format like 35mm, ever bit of stabilization and sharpness really counts. So I guess I'll just get a tripod for every body and glue them all together.

Earl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom