Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/03/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Rolfe Tessem asked: > I assume this was the "new" Tri-X. If so, what are your feelings about it > versus the "old" Tri-X. Does the new version really have significantly > smaller grain, as has been reported? Inquiring minds want to know ;-).<<< Hi Rolfe, Yes it's the new tri-x. Is the grain finer? Well I suppose so, it looks pretty good to Sandy and myself when we've made 16X20 wet prints and 13X19 Epson prints. It appears to have a fine smoothness with nice gradation, yet holds excellent Leica glass edge sharpness. It has good detail in the shadow areas even though we push it one. But most high end films can easily make good prints pushed one. I used Tmax from the time it arrived in the world and for my first medical book, "This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler." Book re-productions were beautiful which led to an order for several 60"X40" prints in a medical centre board room. Even with that behind me, I switched to Tri-x. Actually there were two things that created the return to Tri-X. One, making 16X20 prints from some early 1960 negatives of assignments shot in Europe, I was really amazed at the quality of the negs and prints from exposures made 40 years earlier. ;-) They had this beautiful tonal gradation, so it got me thinking I should go back to Tri-x, particularly if I made negs that looked that good from my earlier photo life. Shortly thereafter while visiting Tom Abrahamsson, he showed me Tri-x prints of his and the switch was a done deal. Tri-x it was for the "Women in Medicine" book. And at the moment from what I've seen in negatives from the 300 plus rolls Sandy & I shot during this past 3 months traveling the country, I doubt we'll be switching back to Tmax. :-) I trust this answers your, >>Inquiring minds want to know?<< :-) ted - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html