UC wrote:
> I did extensive testing of B&W films two years ago and found that Tri-
> X had not changed one whit. It and Neopan 400 were very close in
> sharpness and grain, with the Fuji product having a slightly better
> grain pattern and tonal rendition on Ilford Multigrade. It has a bit
> more highlight contrast than Tri-X but less than TMY. I suspect that
> the reason Kodak improved TMY is that it does not sell as well as Tri-
> X. I think they want to kill off Tri-X or at least boost the sales of
> TMY-2. It is embarassing that 'old technology' Tri-X outsells TMY. TMY
> was a failure from day one, in my opinion. I worked with it for quite
> some time before giving up on it in disgust. The problem is that the
> highlights are contrastier than the shadows, the reverse of Tri-X and
> most general-purpose films.
>
I do not understand how you could get such different results. I like TMX
film when speed permits, but otherwise I like old TMY (I have not tested
the
new). The old TMY, in Xtol developer 1+1 with water, developed in a Jobo
CPE-2 processor gives the straightest line D:H curve I have ever seen
right
down below Zone I. Tri-X 4164 has such a long toe that it has very low
shadow contrast, requiring sufficient exposure to get things off the toe.
The amateur Tri-X in 35mm format has a very different curve. Was that what
you tested?
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 21:35:01 up 7 days, 5:11, 5 users, load average: 4.46, 4.32, 4.23
|
