Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/11

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Tri-X vs. HP5+ at ISO 800
From: Mark Rabiner <>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 11:34:52 -0800
References: <001901c18251$5dbfd760$>

Oliver Bryk wrote:
> To plan some work in available semi-darkness with my Summicron-M f/2, I
> asked my friendly b&w custom processor for his views on rating Tri-X at ISO
> 800 (Jim Mitchell's M.O. for his rock photos). Pierre said that in his
> experience HP5+ was more amenable to pushing than Tri-X.
> I would be curious about any confirming or dissenting views regarding the
> specific choice between these two emulsions.
> Oliver Bryk
Instead of pushing 400 film why not shoot the next speed up!
Neopan 1600 which in most developers is 1600
T Max 3200 which in most developers is 1600 and
Delta 3200 which in most developers is 1200.

To get anything resembling a true push which means you're actually
gettin shadow detail you need to use Acufine or T Max developers which
are pukey Phenidone hydroquinone developers.

Much better to use the super fast films with the developer of your
choice, an Acutance developer probably as this is the look every one is
wanting now especially if they're wanting to see some more of what their
Leica glass can give to them.

Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
- --
To unsubscribe, see

Replies: Reply from "B. D. Colen" <> (Re: [Leica] Tri-X vs. HP5+ at ISO 800)
In reply to: Message from "Oliver Bryk" <> ([Leica] Tri-X vs. HP5+ at ISO 800)