🚀 go-pugleaf

Kenji 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


When Tri-X was introduced in sheet form it was rated at 160 or 200.

It was later released as a roll film and was rated 320 and 400. It's 
still available at 320 and 400 in 120 roll film and at 400 in 35mm.

It is no longer available at 200 in sheet film; only 320.

It was never available at 200 in 35mm or 120 roll film.