Re: [APML]: Hypering PJM (was: Best Beginner Film)

["Bobby Middleton" <bobbym@webwide.net>]

----------
> From: Robert Hoyle
> 
> Notwithstanding the comments of others more experienced than I, you
> might still want to try it hypered.  My limited experience with PJM is
> that while it is has a very good grain (easily equal to that of PPF),
> and is "faster" than PPF (but reciprocity?), PJM's color balance is not
> nearly as good as PPF's. PJM seems to be sorely lacking in "blue"
> response, and has a slight, over-all reddish/magenta tint which I could
> not "balance out" with the printing process (assuming that your "color
> balance" is one which achieves a good "black" sky).

On my web-site there are 2 side-by side Horsehead shots for comparison. 
see: http://www.webwide.net/~bobbym/astro1.htm   The one on the left was
shot with 
unhypered PJM at f/5 (really figures about f/6) for 1 hr. The one on the
right was hypered PPF 400 at f/6
(calculates to about f/7) for 90 min. Both images have been enhanced in
photoshop which included
color adjustments, but they are close enough to the original scans to be an
accurate representation
of the 2 films. You'll also see the vignetting you get with a GEG and lx200
10" f/10 in its faster modes. 

I agree with your assessment Robert, except I feel it has a fair blue
response. The magenta cast is to me is
the worst thing about the film. The best thing about the film to me is the
fact that it can be used unhypered.
I can go out and shoot 3 or 4 pics one night; wait 3 or 4 nights for
another run and shoot some more. 
With hypered film one needs to shoot one night and process the next day. I
don't mind wasting a little film,
but making the 25 mile trip to town is the bother. (Hey, there are some
disadvantages of having a dark site!)
I have two questions now: (1) Does hypered PJM have a better color balance?
and (2) Does unhypered PPF 
loose much in the way of it's color balance and speed (rep failure)?

Bobby Middleton