Re: [Leica] Bad test big no-no

[Bernard <5521.g23@g23.relcom.ru>]

Dan S wrote:

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

Perhaps that's just because TX rather course by itself; a little more or
less dirt won't be noticed.

> 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.

Maybe, but with Tmax400, at least you'll *know* what you've shot, in
fine details. I've shot TX on 6x9 and it was more grainy than Agfa APX25
on small format (35mm). I don't like grain, and I don't want any more of
that TX in my home. What I'm going to do with the eight 220 rolls of the
stuff I have in my fridge, I really don't know; using it is a waste of
time and possibly unique photo-opportunities.

Bernard

>
>
> 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