Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/02/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>> HUH? It's perfectly clear! Mark said Today's Tri-X is not the Tri-X we >> grew >> up with. They did a makeover a year or so ago (new plant) and goofed on >> the >> recipe. So we should call it anything but Tri-X. >> >> :-) >> >> JB >> Having Googled "evolution of Tri-x" and getting Jack I just goggled tri-x in quotes and got an interesting shutterbug article by Frances E. Schultz, November, 2004 35MM TRI-X CELEBRATES ITS 50TH http://www.shutterbug.com/features/1104sb_35mm/ " The first of the X-films was Panatomic-X in 1938. Two-thirds of a century later, there?s some doubt about what the X was for: probably ?Extra,? as it was faster and sharper and finer grained than the original Panatomic that it replaced. Later in the same year came Plus-X; the short-lived Super-X; and the Super-X replacement, Super XX. Then came Ortho-X in ?39 and Tri-X in ?40." " But if Tri-X appeared in ?40, 64 years ago, why is Kodak celebrating its 50th anniversary now? Simple. Until ?54 it was available only as sheet film: that year marked its appearance in 35mm and roll film. Hence the golden anniversary. " He then goes on to say and I guess this will make for good business for Shutterbug. " The point is, Tri-X is one of photography?s classics. In 35mm format, it shares a birthday with one of the cameras that made it famous, the Leica M-series. It would not be exaggerating to say that the fame of the two is related: one of the world?s greatest professional films was (and is) very often found in one of the world?s greatest professional cameras. " So it would seem Frances E. Schultz is a Leicaphile as well as Trix one. And in the middle he states what we are talking about: " Of course, today?s Tri-X is a completely different film from the Tri-X of ?40 or ?54 or even the ?80s, and vastly better. Every revision, including the latest about 18 months ago, has always been greeted with a chorus of complaints, but personally I?m all in favor of such improvements as finer grain, higher sharpness, and less risk of reticulation." Boy did I reticulate a strip of tri x once in I think 1969. I chromium intensified it and washed it in too hot water. And it had gone from hot to cold and back again I think. I tried later to reproduce this and never could. Mark Rabiner Photography Portland Oregon http://rabinergroup.com/