Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Re: Tri-X vs T-Max I'm normally suspicious of other's film experiences until I've tried them myself. I used Tri-X many years ago and found its grain a limiting factor - it was only ideal for the railway/industrial picture I was taking. I've been happy with TMax 400 in D76 1:1 but recently tried a roll of Tri-X. It's not the same film I used to use. It does however have a tonality that I found very attractive with landscape. The grain seems far more controlled than of yore. I was almost tempted to start using Tri-X again! Despite my comments about suspicions of other's experiences I was intrigued to see an example of how controlled the grain can be with Tri-X in Jonathan Eastland's book (3rd Ed) Essential Darkroom techniques (page 108). Very good grain from EI400/D76 1:1. As Eastland is one of the few commentator's who uses Leica's and whose writing and images bear out his philosophy and techniques it is worth quoting his thoughts on Tri-X. "outshines all the rest"..."Ideally developed in dilute D76"..."latitude approximately one and a half stops on either side of recommended speed"..."Some photographers have mentioned to me that the film produces negatives which are often unsharp and overly grainy...in my experience, had the ability to produce negs of excellent quality and sharpness"..."For best results, exposure should be made for the mid to lighter tones and the film processed with a minimum of agitation, as recommended by Kodak, and the temperature strictly controlled." - -- David Prakel