🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <h5kepj$vnh$1@news.albasani.net>, "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?

Adam...you ought to face the fact that there are folks who have more experience than you about film 
and have done photography longer too.

Kenji is one and knows of what he speaks.

I'm probably the other since I've shot photos since 1963-4 and Tri-x was not 200. Not many folks 
"pushed" Tri-X effectively until developers like Acufine or Diafine came out since trying to push 
things in stuff like hot dektol, or using longer times resulted in terrific contrast and, grain.

-- 
Jim