|
|
 | | Author | |
|
| | Date | |
|
|
|
|
phil sweeney |
2:53 8 Jul 03 |
|
|
Sam Carleton |
19:34 5 Jun 03 |
|
|
Phil |
17:57 6 Jun 03 |
|
|
Dominik Schenker |
11:21 10 Jun 03 |
|
|
Sam Carleton |
9:45 4 Jun 03 |
|
|
Phil Davis |
11:30 4 Jun 03 |
|
|
Sam Carleton |
12:20 4 Jun 03 |
|
  |
Re: Determining push processing development times |
|
Phil |
17:08 4 Jun 03 |
 |
Sam --
I don't believe your interpretation of the term "push processing" is the generally-accepted one, but that's not important. Increasing development for whatever reason has the immediate effect of increasing contrast.
I can sympathize with you; working at snapshot speeds in dim light is a challenge and there isn't any simple answer to the question "how long to develop the film to get the most printable image." The _general_ answer is that _any_ development that's greater than "normal" for the subject conditions and your printing methods, will necessarily degrade the image, so you'll have to arrive at a personally-acceptable compromise between shooting convenience and print quality.
I don't know of any films that are better for your purpose than the ones you’ve mentioned. Developers most likely to provide good speed with decent image quality include Xtol, TMRS, and Ilford's DD-X. No doubt there are others that would also work well.
Sorry I can't be of more help, but I wish you luck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Kettles |
8:22 23 May 03 |
|
|
Phil |
11:07 23 May 03 |
|
