🚀 go-pugleaf

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:
>>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>>>I think the kodak line is down to just two types, tri-x and tmax. I
>>>>>>>>have no idea what the difference is between the two.
> 
>>>>>>>The darkness of the blacks. Tri-x has that newspaper photograph quality,
>>>>>>>used for quick and easy developing. tmax takes more care to develop,
>>>>>>>sort of has an unreality about it.
> 
>>>>>>I'm not quite following what any of that means, and I don't have any 
>>>>>>newspapers.
> 
>>>>>>What is an "Unreality"?
> 
>>>>>TRI-X was manufactured in the same speeds for years (200), a high speed
>>>>>high contrast film with coarse grain. Ideal for newspapers which cannot
>>>>>reproduce a fine grain image anyway. Super quick to develop and handle in
>>>>>the darkroom. Typically it was push processed with acceptable results.
> 
>>>>>TRI-X images were ubiquitous and had an unmistakable look.
> 
>>>>>T-MAX has grain similar to color film. The emulsions are the finest
>>>>>grain available and the blacks are much darker. To me, it looks like a
>>>>>color image with the color removed, not really explaining it properly.
>>>>>It doesn't have that documentary image look to it.
> 
>>>>>The two films produce rather different b&w images.
> 
>>>>hey nuthead, just noticed yer post. Yer worng.
> 
>>>>Tri-X is 400iso
> 
>>>Goody. I was speaking of what I had available to me when I shot pictures
>>>with it. If 400 ASA was available at the time, we didn't use it. We just
>>>pushed processed it.
> 
>>>>It's also not ideal for newspapers. absolutely no one is delivering b&w 
>>>>prints for reproduction to a newspaper.
> 
>>>Who the fuck cares. I don't work at a newspaper today and wouldn't know.
> 
>>>He asked me my opinion of the difference in the images. If you have a
>>>different opinion, feel free to share with the class.
> 
>>there was tri-x, at 400, there was plus-x at 125, there was verichrome 
>>pan at 125, if you rolled it yourself and did the dip and dunk or the 
>>nikkor reels you prolly used D-76 or rotinal.
> 
> I didn't use plus-x nor verichrome, and didn't spool the cartridges
> myself. No, they were 35 mm cartridges, already loaded with film, in Kodak
> boxes. Nobody tells a news photographer to spool his own film. Duh. I
> don't care what you claim. They didn't hand me 400 film. If there was
> too little light to shoot at 200, it was pushed processed. That's what
> TRI-X was designed for.
> 
> Everybody knows that some Kodak film labeled as high-speed film didn't
> go through certification for whatever reason. It was actually normal
> speed film that would be push processed. I don't know if TRI-X 400 is in
> that category. Next time I'm at Helix, I'll look at what the box says.
> 
>>if yer gonna be our historian get yer shit straight before sounding all 
>>perfect and shit
> 
>>fuck man
> 
> kenji, that's still a tangent and doesn't answer C.L.'s question. You
> gonna take a stab at it, or you wanna shut the fuck up?

I just noticed this thread again.

B&W is too expensive to even be fun at this point- the processing that is.

I'm going to stick with slide film.