Re: [Leica] Tri-X rated at 200ASA with an M2

["Joe Codispoti" <joecodi@thegrid.net>]

Craig,

as you know, the reason for rating TX at ASA/ISO 200 or 250 it to
systematically overexpose in order to obtain better detail in the shadow
areas. Obviously the highlights also receive more exposure. Therefore it is
necessary to underdevelop to prevent "blocking" of the highlights.
How much underdevelopment depends on developer, developing temperature, and
agitation. 20%-25% of your normal time should be within the safety zone.

The first time I used this expansion/compression technique, it was by
mistake. I photographed a bank with a high shadow to highlight ratio as an
exercise for my own satisfaction with TX. I knew that I had to meter the
shadow in order to get adequate detail and exposed accordingly. However I
had not heard of underdevelopment yet.
As it happened, I looked at the wrong chart for developing times and
processed the film for two minutes less than normal. During the wash/dry
process I realized my mistake and new that my film would be too thin.
To my surprise the negatives were very normal and printed without need for
dodging or burning.

Joe Codispoti



- ----- Original Message -----
From: "craig egerer" <sjegerer@earthlink.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2000 4:59 PM
Subject: [Leica] Tri-X rated at 200ASA with an M2


> Hello,
> I have been seen many on the list referring to using Tri-X film and
> shooting it at 200asa...I would like to know what developing times are
> required for this... I normally use D-76 or HC-110...I  shot a roll
> today with my M2 with a 50mm ( soon be shooting with a 35mm f2 when I
> locate a nice user)..... and  would like to see the results after
> checking with the luggers that know.......
>
> Thanks , Craig
>
>