Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]on 6/26/01 2:30 PM, Austin Franklin at darkroom@ix.netcom.com wrote: >> I don't know how to describe it. Tri-X has grain. T400CN doesn't. > > I'd assume T400CN has die clouds? yeah but they're pretty hard to see. whether that's because they're small or because they have diffuse edges I dunno. But you don't see anywhere near as much noise on the scanned image, that's all I can really say. > >> I've >> never tried to develop Tri-X for very fine grain. It works best by >> exploiting it's edge effect via its grain structure. Trying to develop >> conventional grained film (Tri-X, Plus-X, etc.) in a "fine grain" >> developer >> produces unsharp results. > > I've been using D-76 1:1 for ever, and I get very sharp results with > "reduced" grain, and I really like the results. I did not like Microdol > 1:3. I think Jim is right that as soon as you try to make Tri-X fine grained you lose sharpness. In Xtol it is downright mushy. The best results in terms of grain I have had with Tri-X have been D76 straight followed by an alkali bath, and D23. But as you say D76 1:1 seems to get everything right. > > I'll pick up a few rolls of T400CN and see how it scans compared to Tri-X. > I can scan at 5080, so that should give me something pretty good to look at. They look *very* different. The biggest hassle for me with the chromogenic films has been getting a tonality I like. You'd think you'd be able to pull them into shape with a photoshop curve that gives them more of a toe and shoulder but it's much harder than it sounds. whereas you shoot with TX, APX, Neopan or HP5 and the tonality is right there for you. Not as accurate but more pleasing, like a distorted les paul! - -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com