Having them all lined up i can see how it could be confusing
Both iterations of the Retina have the same Xenon lens design. But there are likely to be slight differences in their performance due to the more advanced coatings used in the IIIc/IIIC types. But the differences are likely to be very small and difficult to discern.
The biggest problem with the Xenon on the IIa is that the majority of them suffers from a clouding of the coatings on the inward facing glass surfaces that occurs, and that coating damage is permanent. Many IIa cameras I have serviced have a minor amount of cloudiness on one or both of the inward facing surfaces (the surfaces that face into the shutter), and maybe 10% of the cameras have moderate to severe clouding, which will definitely impact image quality.
If the cloudiness is minor, you can expect the lens to perform very well. Loss of contrast is the symptom with these lenses. Severe cases have a significant loss of contrast and increased flare, and a kind of "soft focus" effect to the images. Fortunately, only a few cameras I have seen suffer from severe coating damage.
The two versions of the Xenon are the same design, but with some differences, due mainly to the aperture value and the coatings.
This is what I can determine:
• LTM Xenon:
• Softer at wide apertures with a glow effect.
• Dreamy bokeh, especially at f/1.5.
• Sharper when stopped down, but still exhibits vintage character.
• Desirable for portraits and artistic rendering.
• Retina-Xenon:
• Similar glow wide open, but usually higher contrast due to coatings on later models.
• Sharper center even at wide apertures, with slightly harsher bokeh than the LTM Xenon.
• Optimized for general photography rather than solely portraiture.
Key Difference: The LTM Xenon has a dreamier, softer look, while the Retina-Xenon is sharper and higher contrast.
GregY was there a clear difference between the 80 and 100 negs and if so what were those differences
Thanks
GregY was there a clear difference between the 80 and 100 negs and if so what were those differences
Thanks
F, if it is ISO 400 the film would look like this (with/without wrapper)...... if there's an X and ISO 400 it's Tri-X......TMX then it's TMax 100
Having spent the last couple of hours printing. I'd say I like the shadow detail at 80 better than at 100. I could certainly leave the iso rating at 100 but i'd find my self placing the shadows deeper. It is a punchy film...in a good way.I like the contrast. I think the next roll i'll use iso 80 and give less development, say 9 minutes instead of 11. The film does lie dead flat which i like. Like Agfapan 25 and TMax100, with Delta 100 it's work to find enough grain to focus on. I'll post a few images tomorrow when they're dry. For my purposes it will be a good replacement for TMax 100.
I checked the wrapper and it's "Y", TMY-2, with ISO 400 down below it, it's the same as the first one on the left in your row of pictures of the different TM films. This film, I imagine, is not relevant to your topic, is that right?
View attachment 393275
Nevertheless, it's in the Bronica now and I'll shoot it off to satisfy my own curiosity about it. I do though have two boxes of 100 TMAX I found at the bottom of the freezer, but it's 120 too. That might be relevant to your topic in terms of tonality ... Yes or No?
And yippee, digging deeper, I found the only two 35mm Delta 100 films I have. One of those will go in the Retina IIIc with accessory geiger counter to prevent cancer. The one and only film I've exposed in the IIIc was an FP4, not for landscapes, but for subjects much closer, objects I document in my location. I nearly fell off my chair when I viewed those scans, fantastic quality from the Xenon in that consumer camera, albeit a top quality consumer camera. Before Covid and inflation, it didn't cost all that much even with the light meter in very good condition, which I used rather than pocketing the handheld meter. So I'll relent about 35mm for landscapes and try the IIIc.
Thanks Is it possible to show us( I and anyone else interested) the 80 negs and 100 negs I hope to be able to judge for my onw standards and taste whether the loss of shadow detail is something that will make a reduction of film speed worthwhile
Thanks
pentaxuser
checked the wrapper and it's "Y", TMY-2, with ISO 400 down below it, it's the same as the first one on the left in your row of pictures of the different TM films. This film, I imagine, is not relevant to your topic, is that right?
What is the "Develop Before date on that wrapper - I can only see 03/20...?
My guess is either 2018 or 2013.
What is the "Develop Before date on that wrapper - I can only see 03/20...?
GregY Thanks for #135.
pentaxuser
2015, not that old, I'll be treating it pretty much as a fresh film. The other week I exposed and developed a 53yold Verichrome at box speed and it was fine, but I did boost the temp to 27c.
Pyrocat
Is Pyrocat your go-to developer Greg? And do you use it for extra contrast? Not saying you should change, but I've always been under the impression that Pyrocat diminished mid tones. What traits about do you really like, and why you got drawn to it?
Yes, Pyrocat is my go-to. I've used it since it came out and before that used PMK after seeing some results and reading the "Book of Pyro." One of the characteristics i like is the ability to separate subtle tones in the highlights. I've never had blown out highlights on pyrocat negatives. I don't use it for extra contrast as typically a lot of my subjects/lighting already have that going for them. At the same time Pyrocat doesn't supress mid tones.
The posted images in #135 aren't a good example by which to judge Pyrocat as the film was an unknown, the lighting was chosen for strong midday conditions (with lots of dynamic range rather than subjects with long tonal scale) and the prints were copied by iphone by w strong window light from the east (left). My sense was that uniformly lit subjects with smaller dynamic range are pretty easy to meter and expose for. As a starting point, I wanted to see how Delta 100 reacted to more complex lighting.
Here are a couple of examples of photos of exhibition print from pyrocat developer (iphone photos of 16x20" prints)...all Fuji 6x9 negatives with Tri-XView attachment 393314View attachment 393315View attachment 393316
You might run into the wrapper offset problems described in this thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ing-paper-problems-emulsions-affected.137251/
The original 400 TMax had a certain amount of visible grain "clustering". But with the current TMY400, the grain dispersion seems totally consistent, so it is less apparent. It's by far the finest grain film available in that speed category.
Stunning photos and location. Do you live close by? I'm jealous!
2015, not that old, I'll be treating it pretty much as a fresh film. The other week I exposed and developed a 53yold Verichrome at box speed and it was fine, but I did boost the temp to 27c.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?