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 (Dante Stella)
Date: Sun Aug 1 16:40:53 2004
References: <><p05111001b d327d492728@[]> <> <p05111002bd32b8890a40@[]>

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.


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
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information
Dante Stella

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