   |
Phil,
I'm both thrilled and flattered that you ask. I have been absent from the forum for a few weeks due to work pressures — two publications with deadlines at the end of June and about 30 assignments to complete for them. (I shoot architecture and habitat to keep the wolf from the door.) As soon as I am on top of my schedule I shall search out access for a suitable scanner to send you some files.
In the meantime let me say how impressed I am by the BTZS technique and the data you supplied by way of this brief anecdote:
I noticed one of my regular suppliers had a single box of FP4+ on the shelf (8x10 B&W film is normally an 'indent only' item with Kodak & Ilford here on the world's largest island.) What could I do but purchase it - albeit at twice the price of the same item shipped in via Fed-Ex?
I took a stroll across the golf links at North Bondi to shoot a basalt formation high above the ocean which is distinctly sphinx-like. A sheet of HP5+ and a sheet of FP4+ with an SBR of 8 stops (even winter sun is harsh here). I then went further up the road to the 1881 Macquarie Lighthouse for another couple of sheets. I had already shot a roll of Acros 120 of the lighthouse as 6x12s the week before. It is a great 'test' subject because it is stark glossy white and in afternoon sun the eye connot resolve any detail in the highlights — it's like a big cylindrical mirror. In front of it are dark shrubs and then there are cedar doors in the shadow of masonry arches at the front of the plinth. All the films were processed according to the Plotter's recommendations. The negs from the 3 emulsions looked quite different but the 2 8x10 shots contacted printed at exactly the same exposure time on the same multigrade filtration for both film stocks. The 6x12 was enlarged. Test shots rather than art but how wonderful they all are. The FP4+ had its own feel as did the HP5+; they could be matched with a bit of jiggling but I feel there is a difference in the toe curve which gives both films their distinctive 'flavour'. The Acros possibly displayed a little less separation in the shadowed foliage but the top end was a sheer delight.
Of course I can fine-tune and finesse the performance of each of the films but a system that can so easily render such stunning results on a first trial certainly merits acclaim. Thanks Phil!!
Walter Glover
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
