Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 06/28/2001 9:39:11 AM, you wrote: <<of course, that's complete balls if you don't mind me saying so film emulsions have improved to an astonishing degree press photographers in 1940 working with 400 film in 4x5 cameras worried about grain. Fast emulsions often had horrible chalk and soot tonality. I know that Tri-X isn't what is used to be. And I am not going to proseletyse for t-grain. But emulsions like APX 400 and HP5+ developed in Xtol are wonderful and way beyond what was available 50 yrs ago. - -- John Brownlow >> Q: Please explain what you mean by "Tri-X isn't what it used to be?" Is that to be pitied, censured or lauded? Also, there seems to be some controversy about HP5+/Xtol, some darkroom practitioners liking the combo, others claiming unpleasant grain structure by it and recommending D76, instead. While I haven't had much experience with HP5+ , I have used Xtol extensively with other films, including TX, TMY, TMZ, Pan F, Delta 400, D 3200 and misc. others. I think it does a good job with them all, but except for a small increase in shadow detail, I don't see much difference between it and results in D 76 regarding grain and tonality. Other than ease of mixing and up to 1/3 stop additional speed with some films., what do you believe the advantages of Xtol to be? Allen Zak