Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
TX - 35mm/120 - good ("400" ASA)
TXP - 120/220 - bad ("320" - the studio one)
As far as I can tell, both are labelled "professional," but the tipoff is the
prefix (i.e. TX120 as opposed TXP120). They are both best shot at 320,
regardless of what the box says for the "normal" TX. In fact, TX135 used to
be 200 ASA, but when the standards were redone in the 1950s, it got faster.
That lower speed is now corrected with Xtol, which gives pleasant results at
320-400.
In a message dated 1/2/00 6:19:38 AM, christer@almqvist.net writes:
<< I stopped using Tri-X Pan (the one with 5063 marked on the film between
the frame numbers) because none of the three shops around here (Eimsbüttel,
Hamburg, Germany) where I used to get it stocks it any more. Instead they
have Tri- Pan Pro which is rated at 400. Photo Tech magazine say that: '
Tri-X Pan and Tri-X Pan Professional are wholly different films without
much in common besides their manufacturer and name.' They say the Pro is
only available as roll and sheet film and that the speed is 320. Contrary
to this, the Xtol tables say Tri-X Pro has a nominal speed of 400 in 35 mm
(and 320 in 120/620 format). This got me confused, so I started using
HP5plus which I like very much. Still I would appreciate somebody telling
me the if there is any difference between the 5063 Tri-X and the Tri-X Pan
Pro, if there is any.
</XMP>
- ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <daemon@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Received: from rly-yc01.mx.aol.com (rly-yc01.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.33])
by air-yc02.mail.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 Jan 2000 06:19:38 -0500
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [192.147.236.1])
by rly-yc01.mx.aol.com (v67.7) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 Jan 2000 06:19:30 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) id DAA21958; Sun, 2 Jan 2000
03:06:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.misc.net (nobody@mail1.misc.net [212.20.134.3])
by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA21948; Sun, 2 Jan
2000 03:06:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [212.20.139.34] (helo=[212.20.139.56])
by mail1.misc.net with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #1)
id 124iwY-0000Dc-00
for leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us; Sun, 2 Jan 2000 12:13:03 +0100
Message-Id: <v03007801b494dd9eb7f6@[212.20.139.56]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 12:08:03 +0100
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Christer Almqvist <christer@almqvist.net>
Subject: [Leica] tri-x: why I stopped using it
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
id DAA21949
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
id DAA21958
>>