On Oct 13, 9:42 pm, Jean-David Beyer <jeandav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.
You don't want a straight curve for outdoor work. You want an S-shaped
curve, such as that of Tri-X or HP5 or Neopan 400.
> 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?
Yes. 35mm Tri-X Pan.
>
|
