🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <h7fooh$ruv$1@news.albasani.net>, "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Jim  <jim@NOSpaMync.net> wrote:
> >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.
> 
> C.L. asked his question months and months ago. I tried to answer based
> on what I could remember from shooting on Tri-X for a newspaper.
> 
> You try to get a useful information out of Kenji. He still hasn't posted
> a followup to C.L., sheesh.
> 
> If I'm not recalling what film speeds were available at the time, sorry
> about that, but they didn't hand me 400 film. So what speed would it
> have been?
> 
> >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.
> 
> We're talking about mid '80's here.

I'm thinking you have just forgotten what they handed you. I worked for the AP and newspapers in 
early 70's and Tri-X was the standard, all-around film used since it was also so forgiving. Yes, we 
pushed it when necessary based on conditions, but not as a everyday rule. Why? Too much grain for 
the biggest part. Push too much and the grain began to compete with a 133 line screen that 
newspapers used.  And a moire pattern was the last thing they wanted.

-- 
Jim