🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim  <jim@NOSpaMync.net> wrote:
>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.

Skin tones, landscapes, everything has a disconcerting look to it.