Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 4:32 PM -0800 3/12/02, Feliciano di Giorgio wrote: >Hmmm, I've knew that, but I wonder why the difference in asa (320 pro >vs. 400 consumer). > >feli > >Andrew Touchon wrote: >> >> The professional films are more sensitive to storage conditions (heat) than >> the regular films. I have used both types and I can't really tell the >> difference in quality. However, I imagine that if you did scientific >> testing, you would find the professional films to be a slightly better > > product. > They are quite different emulsions, as well as bases. The Tri-X pro has a longer toe and shoulder to hold highlights and shadow detail better. It's a bit grainier, which hardly ever comes up since the TX-pro is available in 120 and larger sizes and TX regular is 35mm. Because of these differences, I hardly ever shoot them side by side if I have to shoot B&W in 35 and larger at the same time. The fact that they are both called Tri-X is what's confusing, as the only thing they have in common is that they are both nearly the same speed and are both from Kodak. - -- * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html