On 14/03/2014 13:43, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/13/14 11:33 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:20:05 PM UTC-4, George Kerby wrote:
Nice article about Kodaks best B&W film...



http://moreintelligentlife.com/conte...rd/tri-x-facto

r?page=full

Kodak's best was Tech Pan, it was beyond the capability of lenses. Tri-X was
grainy and only used by news photogs because they understood how it
functioned. HP-5 was better in the 1980's and currently, T-Max is much better
as is XP-2, a chromogenic B&W film. The best developer for conventional black
and white films, if you can still find it, is Agfa Refinal.

Nope, Microdol-X...

I liked Ilford FP4 for general use back then.

Depends on what you're trying to do. Microdol softens grain boundaries
a bit making for a less grainy appearance. OTOH you can achieve usable
images at 4000 ISO from Tri-X using HC-110 Replenisher (not the
developer) (and no, I don't have the procedure--it was on a note tucked
into my Photo Lab Index that was destroyed when the basement flooded a
while back). Saying that one process is "the best" ignores the issue of
purpose.


Kodak D-11 used to be good for pushing Tri-X hard (and some other
scientific films). It all depended what effect you needed.

I don't really miss wet chemistry darkroom work. I have had more than my
fill of stop bath and fixer smells and still vividly recall choking on
the fumes from Cibachrome colour print chemistry - as the instructions
so coyly put it this solution may dissolve some metals - like chrome,
iron, lead and copper. Fail to put the neutraliser powder in before
disposing of it and you ended up choking in clouds of SO2.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown