Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/01

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

Subject: [Leica] Film snobs and Tri-X
From: dstella1 at ameritech.net (Dante Stella)
Date: Sun Aug 1 16:40:53 2004
References: <20040801000421.YSIF3387.simmts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@straylight><p05111001b d327d492728@[10.3.82.110]> <410CFDB4.3040309@comcast.net> <p05111002bd32b8890a40@[10.3.82.110]>

The look of Tri-X in 35mm is simply the look of a film that is the 
second best for any specific application but one that will produce a 
passable result 90% of the time.  This is something that Fuji has never 
quite mastered.

Dante

On Aug 1, 2004, at 11:12 AM, Karen Nakamura wrote:

>>
>> And why do film snobs eschew Kodak film, execpt for Tri-X?
>
> Jesse -
>
> Thanks for the kind words about my site. :-)
>
> Hmmm...... good question. For me, it's not so much that I eschew Kodak 
> film, it's just that Fuji film beats Kodak in all of the categories I 
> care about.
>
> Fuji Provia 100F is finer than any Ektachrome and scans very well
> Fuji Profia 400F has the least grain of any 400 slide film
> Fuji Acros 100 is one of the best 100 speed B&W films I've used
>
> but there's no beating the "look" of Tri-X so I keep using it too.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> -- 
> Karen Nakamura
> http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
____________
Dante Stella
http://www.dantestella.com


In reply to: Message from locke at straylight.ca (Greg Locke) ([Leica] Born At Risk...)
Message from hellman at comcast.net (Jesse Hellman) ([Leica] Totally OT question about dentists)
Message from mail at gpsy.com (Karen Nakamura) ([Leica] Film snobs and Tri-X)