🚀 go-pugleaf

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.