-
•
salad
-
Cheers.
Maybe because I don't really know the film stocks that well, but I find it hard to tell them apart. I shot a few rolls of TMX400 also pushed to 1600 and had to work out which was TMAX and which was HP5 by dating them rather than being able to work it out from the scans.
I've also been looking a lot at Michael Kenna's work recently (shoots on medium format Tri-X mostly) and Paul Hart (shoots on medium format PanF 50) and again can't tell the film stocks apart.
Maybe there just isn't that much of a difference scaled up to a 6x6 neg ?
Ste_S-
Maybe because I don't really know the film stocks that well, but I find it hard to tell them apart.
I shot a few rolls of TMX400 also pushed to 1600 and had to work out which was TMAX and which was HP5(...)
Maybe there just isn't that much of a difference scaled up to a 6x6 neg ?I'm by no means an expert when it comes to this but I'm beginning to see the differences between different film.
It depends on various factors of course so in other words there's shooting situations were two different film stocks will look pretty much the same, and there'll be other situations where one is able to see the differences quite well.
I think pushing both TMX400 and HP5 two stops is a scenario where both will get pretty rough and it'll get harder to tell them apart - still, I figure if you were to shoot the same subjects the same way with both films pushed to 1600 (and developed / scanned the same way as well) you might indeed see clearly that they don't look the same.
They sure look different shot at box speed.
And while it's not a world of difference of course (let's face it: 99.9% of people on this planet won't see the difference or actually give a fuck) it maybe does matter to you, as you prefer one over the other, the same way you might prefer a standard Nikon 50mm lens over a Canon one etc. - it's all very subtle differences, but in my experience they actually do add up.
