🚀 go-pugleaf

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?