On Oct 17, 6:25 pm, "Richard Knoppow" <dickb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumcommit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:1192627937.515690.258770@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > On Oct 16, 8:18 pm, Dana Myers <dana.my...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
> >> Richard Knoppow wrote:
> >> > My experience the T-Max 400 is quite different from
> >> > UC's:
> >> > I find the tone rendition good for both indoor and
> >> > outdoor
>
> > What the NEW TMY will look like is a mystery. I anticipate
> > it will be
> > somewhat more like Tri-X, but only slightly so. That is, I
> > predict the
> > curve will look more like that of TMX (T-Max 100) than of
> > Tri-X Pan
> > (400) or Plus-X Pan (125) for 35mm.
>
> Lots of snipping of a very long thread...
>
> I suspect that Kodak has taken the op****tunity to refine
> the emulsion making process. I suspect it drifted with time
> and performance may have suffered.
> When Tri-X production was moved from the old B&W plant
> to the color film plant a few years ago it changed a bit. I
> think the same thing happened, the emulsion was not changed
> so much as the process was brought back to optimum. At that
> time people began re****ting they were getting finer grain
> from ISO-400 Tri-X than from 400T-Max. This should not have
> been the case and suggested to me that the T-Max line had
> drifted. AFAIK, T-Max films have always been made in the
> same plant as color film so I suspect the "new" TMY is
> partly the result of getting the manufacturing process back
> to par. Its likely that the new stuff may be slightly finer
> than Tri-X as it should be. We shall see. Kodak has
> published a developing chart for the new version of the film
> but has not posted any sensitometric data yet.
>
> --
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickb...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
am repeating something I posted before.
The Kodak plant that made the old B&W films had to be shut down for a
number of reasons, and the process for manufacturing and coating the
older materials had to be adapted to the newer equipment. I had a
source at Kodak who explained all this to me, but he has retired. I
cannot recall all the details, but it had to do with efficiency and
consistency. The newer plant was much more efficient, and to keep on
making these products at lower volumes at the old plant would not be
acceptable from a profit and consistency perspective.
He told me the products that were moved to the newer plant would be
basically the same as they always were, and that included the
Kodachrome emulsions, I believe.
As far as the functioning of the products, I saw NO difference
whatsoever between Tri-X that I bought and tested last year and the
Tri-X of the last 30 years. It was certainly grainier than TMY, and
any assertion to the contrary must be based on improper processing. I
tested all the major films within the last three years. The tests
showed that Kodak Tri-X, Ilford HP5 Plus, Ilford Delta 400, and Fuji
Neopan 400 were almost indistinguishable in graininess when developed
in Paterson Acutol, a non-solvent developer. I saw very poor results
from AGFA Pan 400. I saw finer grain with TMY, but the same contrast-
curve differences I saw 20 years ago. Nothing of significance had
changed.
I am familiar with the article by the former Kodak employess, but it
is wrong. TMY is finer-grained than Tri-X and always has been. That is
why it was developed.
Kodak has been refining their manufacturing processes all along, just
as any company does. Differences in production between older and newer
products lie primarily in consistency and overall quality. The Tri-X
of today is better than the Tri-X of 30 years ago from a consistency
standpoint, but the image characteristics have scarcely changed at
all.
|
