Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/04

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Fw: Photos
From: "Ken Iisaka" <>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 15:14:40 -0800
References: <002201c08edf$be0936e0$1b72f094@faboydag> <002b01c08ef6$5c07fbe0$a76c193f@8xqli> <>

> Margaret Jeffcoat wrote:
> >
> > I would suggest that if you like it and it's working for your situation
> > go with it. I really don't think your missing anything.
> > Personally I've not tried the TMax in the 400 35mm, still use the Tri X
> > am pleased. Would switch if something told me that
> > would yield better results.
> > Cheers Wilber
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Stuart Boyd <>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 2:21 PM
> > Subject: [Leica] Fw: Photos
> >
> To me from a 35mm neg Tri x looks a little soft in 8x10's and 11x14's.
> With Xtol 1:3 400 speed tab grain films like T Max or Delta look like 100
> In terms of BOTH grain AND sharpness/resolution.
> As we are paying all this money for Leica glass this makes all the more
> Unless you are into old "interesting" glass.
> Then the meatier but softer old fashioned films fit right in. Like tri x.

The trouble with Tri-X is that its speed is really overstated, and is really
about ISO160/23 in order to retain some details in the zone II.  That's only
one speed faster than Ilford Delta 100 (ISO80/20) and a full stop slower
than Delta 400 (ISO 320/26).

I do love the creamy tonality of Tri-X combined with Noctilux, but for most
occasions, I use Ilford Delta 100.

In reply to: Message from "Stuart Boyd" <> ([Leica] Fw: Photos)
Message from "Margaret Jeffcoat" <> (Re: [Leica] Fw: Photos)
Message from Mark Rabiner <> (Re: [Leica] Fw: Photos)