<< I don't quite know what Anchell means by 'soot and chalk' tonal
scale. What that means to me is a contrasty negative, which is NOT what you
get with FX-1. I can only assume he means that it gives a long tonal range
with detail right through from shadows to highlights (which it does).
Derek, thanks for your reply. It is indeed confusing to me. Anchell didn't
say much about the "soot and chalk" in his "Darkroom Cookbook." Most of the
responses to my question to the group say that "soot and chalk" means lack of
details, ugly, and yukk in general. I found today an article in Camera and
Darkroom (also by Anchell) which shows and example of print made from
negative processed in FX1 (or FX2 which is mentioned as an improvement to
FX1?), and the example just look like an ordinary picture to me (I realize
that magazine repro cannot show all, but the image is certainly not high
contrast at all. I can't seem to see anything different that I would call
"soot and chalk").
It is categorized as a high-accutance film. I don't know exactly what that
means. Maybe I will know when I see some actual prints.
>> I used to use FX-1 a lot a few years ago and it really is a superb
Allow me to ask it differently then, what was the reason that you choose to
use it? What quality of it is that you called "superb?" Maybe I am trying
something impossible like understanding some look by word descriptions, but
if you could, could you share a little?
Thanks a lot in advance!