"krishnananda" <k@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> For the past ten years or so I have been using HP5+ as my primary B/W
> emulsion, having found it to be contrastier than Tri-X, which I had used
> for the previous 20 years.
>
> Now I'm finding that Tri-X is more contrasty -- to my eye -- than HP5+.
> Has anyone else noticed this? Some variables are taken care of: same
> lab, same cameras/lenses, usually same developing batch, side-by-side
> comparison of the negs and contacts. Tri-X has a purple mask and HP5+
> doesn't, but I'm not sure what difference that makes.
You are probably noticing a difference in the spectral response of the two
films. I've noticed that Tri-X has an obvious blue bias while HP5+ seems
to
be more sensitive to red. It could be that HP5+ is a more modern emulsion
and as such is actually more panchromatic whereas Kodak is probably
hesitant
to radically change the spectral response of Tri-X for fear of upsetting
people who are accustom to it's old-fashion blue-bias.
So I like Tri-X because it gives everything that "look" (dark lips, light
skies), however HP5+ gives a more "faithful" rendering and is easier to
get
a good print in contrasty situations and is more forgiving of exposure
errors.
--
Dominic Richens | knob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!"
|
