Old 02-05-2017   #41
Samuel D
Registered User
 
Samuel D is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
Kodak used to have a comparison chart online that rated four of their developers for fine grain, image sharpness, and effective speed.
This comparison chart sounds very interesting but I wasn’t able to find it. Any specific terms I should search for?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2017   #42
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 4,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel D View Post
This comparison chart sounds very interesting but I wasn’t able to find it. Any specific terms I should search for?
Here you go:

Click on this:
http://static.photo.net/attachments/...-17056284.jpeg
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2017   #43
Rob-F
It's Only a Hobby
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Posts: 4,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Dear Rob,

Second para: yes, you are absolutely right. Ilford's epitaxial Delta grains are a lot cleverer than plain tabular grains (T-grains), which Ilford's research department tried on the way to Delta.

First para: you're right there too. Not only is there a larger surface area: a large, flat crystal can support multiple development sites.

There is a clue to yet another factor in the word "monosize". In a conventional cubic-grain film film, the crystals are of widely varying sizes, meaning that there are a lot of small, slow crystals as well as the big, sensitive ones. This is how you can use less silver and still get greater sensitivity in T-grain and Delta: far fewer "wasted" small crystals.

In practice, there's a lot more convergence between cubic and tabular crystal films than most people realize. Controlling crystal habit is one of the underlying technologies in improving both kinds of film.

Cheers,

R.
In my mind's eye, it seems that the larger frontal area of each grain would reduce resolution, like having larger, but fewer pixels in a digital sensor. But in reality, Delta film seems finer-grained and sharper. Once again, there is more to this than meets the eye! Or maybe the T- or Delta-grain is not larger than conventional, just thinner?
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2017   #44
Samuel D
Registered User
 
Samuel D is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 42
Thanks, Rob. It makes Xtol look impressive, doesn’t it? For others interested, the original source appears to be Kodak’s old website, here (Web Archive link; image may load slowly).

Carry on!
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:12.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.