[pure-silver] Re: Tri X film versions and sizes
- From: john stockdale <j.sto@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:59:19 +1000
Maybe that's why pyrogallol is popular with some landscape photographers,
in light of the recent discussion here of the effect of the olive stain on
VC papers.
John S
===========================
At 06:27 AM 16/02/2005, you wrote:
>So, even with a roll-off type type developer like Microdol X, Tri X320 in
>5x4 is not going to be suitable for landscape work on anything but the
>dullest day. That was a near miss, thanks. Looks like I'm down to the Tmax's
>and Acros that are available in 120 and 5x4 if I'm going to give Ilford the
>heave-ho.
>
>
>On 15/2/05 12:55 am, "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Barrie Bunning" <barrieb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 2:06 PM
> > Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Tri X film versions and sizes
> >
> >
> >> Greetings Chris; I have been a ' Tri-X ' user for many ,
> >> many
> >> years, The 400 Tri-x is basically an amateur
> >> emulsion, good but the
> >> 320 is the ' Pro ' film has a much better sensitivity
> >> curve AND has been
> >> the stock film for Professionals world wide for years.
> >> Being an 'Old '
> >> type emulsion it has a lot going for it , in my view it is
> >> worth making ONE
> >> of your standard film types. Cheers BarrieB.
> >> At 07:05 AM 15/02/2005, you wrote:
> >>> In my quest to find my film of choice and after comparing
> >>> Tmax 400 with TriX
> >>> I plumped on TriX. I then downloaded the latest Kodak
> >>> datasheets and found
> >>> to my amazement, two Tri X emulsions, TriX 400 and 320,
> >>> which are available
> >>> in different formats. I cannot begin to understand the
> >>> weird reasoning
> >>> behind this but would welcome any observations between the
> >>> two emulsions.
> >>>
> >>> It would also seem that TriX 400 is not available in 5x4!
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Regards Chris Woodhouse
> >>>
> > I disagree with the characterizations of the two
> > emulsions. Tri-X roll film has a medium toe, long straight
> > line characteristic suitable to general photograpy. The
> > sheet film has a characteristic with rising contrast
> > throughout. It certainly is made for "professional" use but
> > is specified for studio use where flare can be controlled.
> > That is because shadow contrast is comparitively low and any
> > flare may lower it too much. Tri-X sheet film is useful
> > where you want exagerated highlights. In comparison with a
> > standard curve film like roll Tri-X or with 400 T-Max the
> > mid gray tones will be rendered darker for a given highlight
> > and shadow point. This is neither better or worse but may
> > not be suitable for some subjects. Ilford HP-5, if it is
> > still available, has a more nearly straight line curve as do
> > the T-Max films. Fuji Acros is another long straight line
> > film.
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Richard Knoppow
> > Los Angeles, CA, USA
> > dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > ===============================
> > To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> > account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,)
> > and unsubscribe from there.
> >
>
>--
>Regards Chris Woodhouse
>
>
>
>=============================================================================================================
>To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
>account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
>subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
