[rollei_list] Re: looks like ... Agfa Scala

>>
> Except that Agfapan 100 in use is one of the most wide
> range and smooth
> films out there. And the results you'd get from a Scala
> slide in use would
> be the opposite of that. The direct opposite. A VERY short
> tonal scale being
> a slide.
> So saying they are the same to me kind of gives off the
> wrong message in a
> confusing way.
> Chief Justice Scala himself even said this in his last
> address.
> He said "Phooey on Agfapan 100!"
> Then hit his hammer.
>
>
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/

  Reversal films do not really have a short range. In fact,
if we are talking about a slide to be projected or a back
illuminated transparency, the tonal range of the
transparency should be substantially greater than a
reflection print. I think the reason reversal materials have
this reputation is that they are comparitively high contrast
materials that are essentially developed to completion and
are very critical of exposure. It IS possible to make lower
contrast reversal films but they will look flat when
projected. Relatively low contrast reversal materials are
made for making duplicate negatives (internegatives) for
motion picture use because the process eliminates one
generation. Kodak also used to make a low contrast form of
Kodachrome. This was used as the camera original when
duplicates were desired. However, most reversal material is
intended for direct viewing when illuminated by bright
sources.
  I have never used Scala but the scanned images I've seen
suggest it has a pretty long scale.
  I've used APX-100 in roll and sheet film. Its nice stuff
although a bit grainy for smaller negatives. I regret its no
longer available in sheet sizes. I shot portraits on it and
found it gives very nice tone quality. I use D-76 diluted
1:1 for just about everything. It works well for Agfapan. I
also tend to make negatives slightly on the low contrast
side because they print better on my condenser enlarger. I
think excessively contrasty negatives are a prime source of
blown out highlights and other common complaints. While many
people will test a film by making exposure tests not many
will make development tests. Try the manufacturer's times
for a starting place. If the negatives print too contrasty
make another test and develop it about 30% less time. If the
exposure of the first negative was OK for shadow detail
increase the expousre for the second test by about a stop to
compensate for loss of density on the shadow end. I've found
for T-Max film, which I use a lot, that Kodak's times, which
are for diffusion printing, are too long. By reducing the
time by about 1/3rd I get good, long scale negatives that
print on normal grade paper with good tone rendition.
  I have no idea how Scala would perform as a negative film
but it probably would not have any advantage over
conventional negative films.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' 
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: