[rollei_list] Re: Old film
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 18:06:19 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin Wallace" <Marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 5:34 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Old film
> An interesting distinction here between the photographer
> and the collecter.
> A Rollei a 1960's Planar will give equal or better results
> than the modern
> equivalent; old film is not as good as modern film; older
> b/w papers are
> sometimes better because of the higher silver content.
> And ask for old light meters ! A modern light meter will
> give a more
> accurate measurement of light; so that the lighting
> conditions can be more
> accurately translated to film (modern film) which records
> better.
> I am always surprised that people use old meters the
> modern equivalents are
> much better.
> An analogy regarding the use of light meters would be, the
> USA making a
> Space Rocket and then using a compass as the guidance
> system.
> Marvin.
>
Part of the reason is cost. Modern exposure meters are
quite expensive. Older meters can be cheap. Also, the
difference in "accuracy" is not that great. A good older
meter will usually agree with a more modern one as far as a
simple reading. Also, exposure is to some extent relative,
no matter how sophisticated the meter the photographer must
still understand what he/she is reading and the relation to
what the film is recording.
Modern films are better than the older ones in a couple of
ways, particularly having finer grain and better
resolution/sharpness. However, as far as tone rendition, I
am not sure there has been much change. Its easy to find 60
or 70 or more year old negatives that make very good prints.
Paper is another problem. I am not at all sure that modern
papers are as good as those of the past but, of course,
since one can not directly compare, its impossible to know.
From published data modern papers are certainly capable of
higher Dmax than those of, say, 1950, but Dmax is not the
alpha and omega of paper performance.
Speaking of papers I have just been testing Freestyle's
Arista Edu, which at a guess is Kentmere. Its on a somewhat
light weight base but otherwise seems to be nice paper and
is relatively cheap. It curls more than either Kodak or
Agfa.
---
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
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
