🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <h3oumd$r8$1@news.albasani.net>, "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.

Tri-X was and is a 400 speed film. 

However, many folks rated it at 200 and developed it for 80% of the recommended time in say D076 or 
HC-110 dil b.

Tri- X was a good, all-purpose film for most needs.

T-Max has always produced wierd skin tones.

-- 
Jim