Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/08/05

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Leica Users digest V20 #217
From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 00:02:53 -0700
References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010804152255.009f3470@pop.2alpha.net> <OE341PHrxNKaH4PeGSB00002b05@hotmail.com>

Mxsmanic wrote:
> 
> Peter writes:
> 
> > I think the key word here is "Medium Format."
> > Also, isn't Tri-X Professional different
> > from 35mm Tri-X?
> 
> The ISO 320 emulsion, apart from its lower speed, has a more extended
> sensitivity in the shadows.  It's unfortunate that it is not available in 35mm
> format, as I've always wanted to try it.

It's tonality is also completely different from real tri x.
This film should not have been called Tri x. 
It seems to be called that only because Tri x is a name which is recognized.
Dumb. Misleading.
Shame on Kodak for that and a slew of other things.
But i think it's OK stuff and comes in 220.
It's slower speed indicates it's finer grain.
Some think it does not make a good general purpose film. I disagree.


Mark Rabiner

Portland, Oregon
USA

http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/

In reply to: Message from Peter Klein <pklein@2alpha.net> ([Leica] Re: Leica Users digest V20 #217)
Message from "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> (Re: [Leica] Re: Leica Users digest V20 #217)