Re: [Leica] Bad test big no-no

["Dan S" <dstate1@hotmail.com>]

Tri-X is also remarkably resistent to emulsion scratches, dust and other 
pain in-the-butt accidents that can really ruin your day.

Shoot a roll of Tri-X, and a roll of T-max400.  I'll just bet you'll have 
more specs other oddities with the Tmax.

All hail Tri-X....

>From: Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>

>
> >>>
>In my experience Tri-X seems to last forever. I've used MUCH older stuff
>
>with no  problem.
>
>Ken Wilcox
><<<
>
>
>And, in our experience, it's not much subject to heat damage, either.
>Long ago I read a test report by a photographer who was worried about
>heat. He left some Tri-X, exposed and unexposed, in his trunk in the
>Nevada desert at the peak of summer for several weeks, along with a
>recording weather thermometer. Temps got up to 180 degrees F. Neither
>the exposed roll, when developed, or the unexposed roll, once shot and
>developed, showed any adverse effects.
>
>He stopped worrying about heat after that, and so did I.
>
>One of the very great advantages of Tri-X is its toughness. It is not
>very susceptible to age, not very susceptible to heat, prints fine even
>when showing high levels of fb+f (even chemical fog), and is not
>affected by long hold times.
>
>A "hold time" is the amount of time that elapses between exposure and
>development. If you want to see something interesting, shoot a roll of
>your favorite b&w film and develop it immediately--within the first
>hour. Keep an identically-shot test roll hanging around the house for a
>year. Develop it, than make comparison prints. Your eyebrows will
>probably go up! Most films show slight hold-time deterioration within
>the first six hours after exposure, and then stabilize for relatively
>long periods before beginning a gradual process of image deterioration.
>Tri-X is relatively immune to this--it looks virtually the same whether
>processed at six hours or at six months (although it does look slightly
>better when processed immediately).
>
>To name two films of which this this not true, try developing a roll of
>Agfa 400 or Kodak T-Max P3200 at one hour, and at one year. They look
>like entirely different films. The grain gets much larger and mealy,
>sharpness is much worse, and tonality suffers. It's so bad with P3200
>that if I find on old, unprocessed roll, I don't even bother to process
>it. (P3200, more than any other film, should be purchased fresh and
>processed promptly for best results. Many photographers who have
>"tested" P3200 have come to WRONG conclusions because they're not even
>aware of what a "hold time is, and they've kept the film hanging around
>for months before using it and then wait weeks or months before
>processing it. Then they get on the internet and spout off about what
>they're "sure" it looks like. Bad test, big no-no.)
>
>This is a hidden reason why pros often get better-looking results than
>amateurs--they tend to use films closer to optimum emulsion ripeness,
>and then process immediately, no matter what film they are using. It
>helps.
>
>I'll say one thing. The more you know about film, the easier it is to
>love Tri-X.
>
>--Mike J. / _PHOTO Techniques_ magazine
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com