On Oct 14, 7:18 am, Lloyd Erlick <Lloyd at @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dot com> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 01:42:21 GMT, Jean-David
>
> Beyer <jeandav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >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?
>
> October 14, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,
>
> TMY confounded me for a while, too, when I
> first started using it. The highlights indeed
> are quite capable of becoming much too dense.
>
> But I found that dilute D-76 (I like 1+1) or
> Xtol (1+2) did a very nice job on it. And it
> is especially im****tant to rate the EI of TMY
> as 200 or 250, not the advertising claim
> printed on the box. In any case, for my
> ****traitistical purposes, a low EI yields
> beautiful shadow detail and gorgeous skin
> tonality.
>
> I did not like TMY very much at first,
> either, but it's a very, very good and useful
> tool. I hope Tri-X never disappears, because
> it too is a beautiful tool, and significantly
> different from TMY. Altogether a good pair of
> films. The vast majority of my ****traits have
> been done on TMY for the last ten years or
> more.
>
> regards,
> --le
> ________________________________
> Lloyd Erlick ****traits, Toronto.
> website:www.heylloyd.com
> telephone: 416-686-0326
> email: ****tr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ________________________________
> --
Yes, in studio situations such as ****traiture TMY can be very good,
but not outdoors.
|
