[rollei_list] Re: TMax400
- From: "Eric Goldstein" <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 14:03:48 -0500
Agreed. I meant/should have used ISO.
IE is a whole seperate discussion and without details of temps,
processing times, etc, it's a pretty useless one....
And yes I've pulled Tri-X for years... down to N-2. Sometimes reduced
contrast can be your friend...
Eric Goldstein
On 2/7/07, Allen Zak <azak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Eric,
There really is no "true IE" for Tri-X 400, but if there were, Steven
Woody has nailed it. He is reporting an Exposure Index, not Kodak's
"official" ASA/ISO. An EI can vary considerably from the rated speed
and still be considered suitable. I have known many competent
photographers rate TX anywhere from 84 to 800 for normal processing in
D76 1:1, and it worked well for their particular circumstances. In
most cases, however, the best printers I have known rated their TX @
160-250 when processing in D76.
For more than 5 decades I have exposed and processed TX in D76 at EI
200 because it was a good fit with my condenser enlargers to produce a
full tonal range print with most negatives on variable contrast paper,
no filtration. With a diffusion enlarger, I would rate TX @ EI 250
(the difference really negligible, but sometimes I like to live large).
If you have not yet done so, try rating your next roll of TX @ EI 200,
don't change your processing, and see what comes out. My guess is you
will be pleased.
Allen Zak
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
