[Leica] New TriX

[daniel_ridings at yahoo.se (Daniel Ridings)]

I understand Jeffery's pain. The new Tri-X with a Minolta scanner (I think
we both have Minolta film scanners) is a lousy combination. There's
nothing wrong with the film, it just doesn't work well with Minolta
scanners.

I dumped the new Tri-X in the beginning until I realized this. Now I've
given it a new chance because Agfa is dumping all 120 film, b/w and color.
It's not clear whether they are doing this only for the Swedish market, or
for the global market.

At any rate, I have to settle for a replacement. Since Tri-X is
everywhere, why fight the system? When I shot some new Tri-x (just this
week) with my Rollei, it forced me to use another scanner than the Minolta
and the film works just fine (it has always printed just fine).

http://www.rollei-gallery.net/ridings/image-64005.html

And the other shots in that folder are the new Tri-X. All but the last
three are per Kodak's recommendations for Xtol 1:1 (9 minutes at 68/20
degrees). The last three are also Kodak's recommendations (that are no
longer published) for Xtol 1:2 (for the old Tri-X): Xtol 1:2, 10 1/2
minutes, 68/20 degrees.

I feel so drab and plain. Kodak's recommendations usually work for me
right out of the box. No creativity, no monkeying with the times, EI, etc.
I'm such a bore. (Ok, with some films I deviate, usually developing longer
than the starting point, but not with Tri-X).

If anything, and I'm given a choice between over or underexposing by a
third of a stop (my camera only works in half stops) I go with under
exposure.

Daniel Ridings


On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Jeffery Smith wrote:

> I share your pain. Now that I scan and use digital, Tri-X went from my
> favorite film to my least favorite film. I'd like to like it. Anyone
> have a recommendation for a good 35mm scanner that can scan Tri-X
> without it looking like crap? So far, developing it in Paterson FX50
> seems to help since it leave very thin negatives.
>
> Jeffery Smith
> New Orleans, LA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+jls=runbox.com@leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+jls=runbox.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Michael
> E. Berube
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 8:42 PM
> To: lug@leica-users.org
> Subject: [Leica] New TriX
>
> Does anyone have a favourite formulation for the new TriX? How does it
> look in
> Rodinal Mark?
>
> My local most trusted B&W lab guy hates the new TriX with a passion (he
> prefers
> Bergger and HP5) and indeed all of the new TriX rolls that I've seen
> from his
> lab have the tonality of lith film. He's using D76 for TriX but I know
> not at
> what time/temp. I do not want to send him the film if he isn't having a
> good
> time with it so it looks like I'll be processing silver again for my fun
>
> shooting (then having it scanned and print via Epson or Frontier.
>
> I have been out of the B&W darkroom for about a decade.
> I got 20 rolls of the new TriX to push through my Leicas at a really
> nice price
> but don't want to waste them all in experimenting so I'd love a jumping
> off
> point if someone is using the new emulsion with a custom ISO rating, a
> favourite developer or a custom time/temp/agitation choice and is liking
> the
> results.
>
> Any help will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Carpe Luminem,
> Michael Eric Berube
> GoodPhotos.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>