Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Re. my comparison of Tri-X shots from the 70s and this year, > 1972: http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/oldpics/framer.htm (Tri-X, D76 1:1, > DR 50 Summicron). > 2001: http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/mischabutter.jpg (Tri-X 2001, processing by Kodak in T-Max developer, 35mm pre-asph Summicron. Mark Rabiner says: >Geese Peter! not real scientific to put it mildly! If you only had run the >later >Tri x in D76 1:1 as well we'd have a real comparison!! >Many people (Erwin perhaps?) feel tri x had gone downhill over the >decades. aint >what it used to be. >Its true that "half and half" is really "one third - two thirds" so i'd >belive anything. >Tri harder x... Mark, I'm starting to understand you, and that scares me :-) :-) :-) Yep, the difference in lenses and developers makes it very unscientific indeed. However, it does gibe with other people's results I've seen. Tri-X today seems significantly less grainy and sharper than it was back in the Age of Aquarius. Through a magnifier, there is certainly a level of detail in the newer shot that just isn't there in the older one. But you're right, too many variables, not statistically significant. Now that I think about it, I can't really be sure if the 2001 shot was souped in D76 or Microdol-X--I used both back then. When I start souping my own film again, I will probably try D76 again, although the lure of Xtol is quite strong. It's interesting how several people here think Tri-X is much better with Xtol, Photo techniques site says that Tri-X was one of the few films that was *NOT* appreciably better with Xtol. See http://www.phototechmag.com/buying_b-w.htm (the site is down right now, but I have a printout from it) No one has yet answered my question about Tri-X in T-Max developer: Is this a significant improvement over D76 1:1? Or does Kodak processing do it this way for economic reasons short development times, one chemical for all B&W films)? >The fact that Ansel Adams shot and got such results from it in medium >format (in >the 1970's) instead of 100 speed films or slower (on his tripod) is something >(and in HC-110 yet) that many have to toss and turn over every night after >running their 100 speed sheet film in an acutance developer. >The world is only interesting because of all the aberrations, aberrances, and >anomalies. >Not to mention the aborigines! I think the key word here is "Medium Format." Also, isn't Tri-X Professional different from 35mm Tri-X? Mxsmanic, aka Anthony des Beaux Images de Paris, says: >I've had photos that looked like both, all taken with the current version of >Tri-X. I think it depends on the conditions of the photo, the >development, and >the scan, not the film, although I understand that Tri-X has been slightly >modified at least once since its introduction. The same Photo Techniques article I refer to above says that Tri-X has been "continually and incrementally improved at least until the introduction of the T-Max films." >The 1972 photo is slightly overexposed, I think. Pull those shadows down and >it'll look a lot like the 2001 photo. The 1972 photo looks cleaner, actually, >but that is probably because there was less contrast in the original scene, or >something (there are multiple possibilities). and shino@ubspainewebber.com says: > > > i think it's a very nice photo, and a very nice scan. > > the tonality of the overalls and the texture of the > > walls are nicely captured. it would have been very > > easy to crank the contrast up too much. The 2001 photo was taken in a dimly-lit, contrasty restaurant, exposure was around 1/60 at f/2 or 1/30 at f/2.8, metered off my hand in the same lighting and opening up one stop. I actually increased the contrast a bit in Irfanview. The 1972 photo was taken on a cloudy-bright April midday, facing south, so everything is probably a little flat. I made it a bit more contrasty than the initial scan came up--much more than that and it started to look "wrong." Both were scanned with VueScan, where I experimented with the black and white points a bit. Then added a bit of contrast and gamma adjustment in Irfanview. Back in 1972, I developed everything for available light (ie. get some shadow detail, and fix the rest in printing). I used D76 1:1, but there was a period where I used Microdol-X 1:3 before going back to D76. I used Agfa Gevagam paper and a #3 VC filter for my "normal" negs. I think I also had a box of #5 paper for those really thin negs. All this meant that outdoor B&W shots were not always processed optimally. I also probably agitated too much--a common problem for those of us who came of age in the 60s... :-) Then again, I remember the 60s, so, as the saying goes, maybe I wasn't really there... Thanks to everybody for the comments. - --Peter