🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <kenji-D6314E.16325006082009@news.isp.giganews.com>, Kenji <kenji@ripco.com> wrote:

> In article <h5fhqn$lci$4@news.albasani.net>,
>  "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.
> 
> if yer gonna be our historian get yer shit straight before sounding all 
> perfect and shit
> 
> fuck man

and there was Pan-X at 32. A WONDERFUL film of which I have much  in the freezer.

-- 
Jim