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

["rlb" <rlb@triad.rr.com>]

I will take the mush as first choice when I can.

bob
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2000 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Tri-X rated at 200ASA with an M2


> Christer Almqvist wrote:
> >
> > What negative format did Jack use?
> >
> > What size __prints__ do you make and what do they look like?
> >
> > >
> > >snip
> >
> > >.....Jack Leigh.  He is an
> > >exceptional photographer from Savannah, Georgia.    He exhibited some
> > >absolutely gorgeous prints, full of depth, beautiful highs and the
shadows
> > >were full of detail.  He has used nothing buy Tri-x at ISO 200 for
years.
> > >He processes in D-76, 1:1,  68F for 7 minutes.  I have tested it and
the
> > >negatives are beautiful.    I don't think that it will replace my Delta
> > >films in Xtol but under some lighting conditions it does have a very
> > >appealing appearance.
> > >
> > >Bob Bedwell
> > >
>
> And medium format negs tolerates over exposure much better than 35!!
> Sheet film you can expose the hell out of and not even use a meter ala
Edward
> Weston and many others.
> But a 35mm neg requires the minimum density to get the image.  In other
words no
> more exposure or development than needed for adequate detail. Or grain
builds up
> and you get a mushier negative to make a less well separated print.
>
> For 120 perhaps it's "more information" but in the squeakier world of 35mm
it
> translates to mush! We can't have our mush and eat it too! For 35 we split
hairs!
> Mark (there's a hair in my mush) Rabiner