Re: [Leica] Re: Tri-X vs T-Max

[ShadCat11@aol.com]

In a message dated 06/27/2001 4:32:54 AM, you wrote:

<<Despite my comments about suspicions of other's experiences I was intrigued
to see an example of how controlled the grain can be with Tri-X in Jonathan
Eastland's book (3rd Ed) Essential Darkroom techniques (page 108). Very good
grain from EI400/D76 1:1. As Eastland is one of the few commentator's who
uses Leica's and whose writing and images bear out his philosophy and
techniques it is worth quoting his thoughts on Tri-X. "outshines all the
rest"..."Ideally developed in dilute D76"...>>

Several years ago I had occassion to reprint some of my negs from the 60s and 
early 70s.  My exhibition enlargements were 11X14, about half from 35 mm, the 
other 6X6.  All were on Tri-X.  

Several of the 35mm enlargements were taken for MF (not, I hasten to add, by 
the really knowledgeable), actually looked quite good, with plenty of guts in 
the dark tones and subtle highlights, not bad grain.  Perhaps modern paper 
helped, but I believe the prints were comparable to what can be got with most 
of today's negative stock.  

Addendum; also, during the 1970s, first 35 mm prints I ever mistakenly 
thought were from 4X5 were  8X10s, taken with a Leitz 35mm Summicron on Tri-X 
film developed in D76 diluted 1:1 and printed with a Leitz Focomat 1c.  It 
made a believer out of me on a whole range of topics.

Allen Zak    

"latitude approximately one and
a half stops on either side of recommended speed"..."Some photographers have
mentioned to me that the film produces negatives which are often unsharp and
overly grainy...in my experience, had the ability to produce negs of
excellent quality and sharpness"..."For best results, exposure should be
made for the mid to lighter tones and the film processed with a minimum of
agitation, as recommended by Kodak, and the temperature strictly
controlled."

- --
David Prakel
>>