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.
- ----oops..... The regular TX is also available in 120, of course. I
had 4x5 in my head when talking about the unavailability of the TX
regular.
- --
* 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