New Freestyle Premium film ID?

John wrote:
Jean-David Beyer wrote:

I thought they did make a better B&W T-Grain film. It TMax films are both
sharper, finer-grained, and have a straighter D/H curve than any I have ever
used in sheet sizes, anyway.

That straighter curve has me puzzled. Doesn't it compress
luminance/density values? Maybe habit has prejudiced me. I'll have to
try some in 4x5 so that perhaps I'll understand why some like it.

No, the toe of longer toe films compresses the shadows, and the shoulder (if
present) in other films compresses the highlights. The only film I ever used
that had a shoulder in the highlights (in the useful range) was Panatomic-X.

With a very short toe, you do have to be careful not to underexpose because
if you do, you get nothing.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:05:01 up 5 days, 13:11, 4 users, load average: 4.12, 4.16, 4.09

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
John wrote:
Jean-David Beyer wrote:

I thought they did make a better B&W T-Grain film. It TMax films are both
sharper, finer-grained, and have a straighter D/H curve than any I have ever
used in sheet sizes, anyway.
That straighter curve has me puzzled. Doesn't it compress
luminance/density values? Maybe habit has prejudiced me. I'll have to
try some in 4x5 so that perhaps I'll understand why some like it.

No, the toe of longer toe films compresses the shadows, and the shoulder (if
present) in other films compresses the highlights. The only film I ever used
that had a shoulder in the ighlights (in the useful range) was Panatomic-X.

With a very short toe, you do have to be careful not to underexpose because
if you do, you get nothing.

Please don't beat me up just yet. Do we actually use either toe? If one
were to take the actual ranges of exposure that are generally useful to
printing would they include either toe? IOW, make a rectangle of the
bounded (useful) area and slide it up and down the curve. Toe? No toe?
OK, now you can beat me up.

John wrote:
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
John wrote:
Jean-David Beyer wrote:

I thought they did make a better B&W T-Grain film. It TMax films are both
sharper, finer-grained, and have a straighter D/H curve than any I have ever
used in sheet sizes, anyway.
That straighter curve has me puzzled. Doesn't it compress
luminance/density values? Maybe habit has prejudiced me. I'll have to
try some in 4x5 so that perhaps I'll understand why some like it.
No, the toe of longer toe films compresses the shadows, and the shoulder (if
present) in other films compresses the highlights. The only film I ever used
that had a shoulder in the ighlights (in the useful range) was Panatomic-X.

With a very short toe, you do have to be careful not to underexpose because
if you do, you get nothing.

Please don't beat me up just yet. Do we actually use either toe? If one
were to take the actual ranges of exposure that are generally useful to
printing would they include either toe? IOW, make a rectangle of the
bounded (useful) area and slide it up and down the curve. Toe? No toe?
OK, now you can beat me up.

I have no interest in beating you up.

You can do as you say, but I found, with 4147 Plus-X and 4164 Tri-X that you
had to slide exposures so far up the curve to get acceptable (for me) shadow
contrast, that I was using EI of 20 and 80, respectively, for those films.

With TMax film, I can use an EI of 50 and 200. If I test those films, they
are as it says on the box (100 and 400), but I get better prints if Zone V
is at about 0.9 density when developed to normal contrast and to get that
requires a little more exposure. If I used those old films (as I did in the
past), the exposure times got ridiculous.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 09:50:01 up 5 days, 15:56, 4 users, load average: 4.89, 4.71, 4.58

http://tinyurl.com/5mpes8



I can't figure out which film this is, can you post a
more definite description.

Craig Schroeder
craig nospam craigschroeder com

wrote in message ...
Has anyone tried this yet? There has been conjecture that it is
Tri-X, re-spooled by Freestyle. I'm about due for some freezer
filling on a group bulk order and was hoping to confirm the
information.


I suspect that film (Arista II is it?) is Tri-X type 1... for the emerging of
type II the new stuff. Kodak must have dumped their good stock for
cheap. $1.89 a roll. Tried a roll of the new stuff and have yet to scan
it, but when I saw the ad as endorsed by the great John Sexton, I had to
try it.

--
Giant_Alex })))*
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/

In article , LGLA wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
Has anyone tried this yet? There has been conjecture that it is
Tri-X, re-spooled by Freestyle. I'm about due for some freezer
filling on a group bulk order and was hoping to confirm the
information.


I suspect that film (Arista II is it?) is Tri-X type 1... for the emerging of
type II the new stuff. Kodak must have dumped their good stock for
cheap. $1.89 a roll. Tried a roll of the new stuff and have yet to scan
it, but when I saw the ad as endorsed by the great John Sexton, I had to
try it.

I guess it depends just how late in the manufacturing process Kodak
edge-prints the film...

--
Thor Lancelot Simon
"My guess is that the minimal training typically provided would only
have given the party in question multiple new and elaborate ways to do
something incomprehensibly stupid and dangerous." -Rich Goldstone

Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

I guess it depends just how late in the manufacturing process Kodak
edge-prints the film...

Since they leave the film in large (both wide and long) rolls in cold
storage (litteraly a cave, but I think it's really an old mine), and
cut it only when they are about to spool it, pretty late. It makes no
sense to edge print it before it's being spooled as there is no way to
know what to print, or where.

Just as an off the wall thought, didn't Kodak sell their entire factory,
except for the building itself to Lucky in China? I thought it was taken
apart and moved east, similar in process to what the Soviet Union did
to Germany in 1945.

According to what Kodak said, the change from the "old" to "new" Tri-X
was that production was moved from the old equipment to the same production
line that produces their color film.

Could this be the same Kodak Tri-X formula, made on the same Kodak
production line, in China by Lucky? If they are willing to maintain the
same quality control that Kodak did, it would be IMHO a pretty good product.

Now all we have to do is convince them to make some Panatomic-X. :-)

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Could this be the same Kodak Tri-X formula, made on the same Kodak
production line, in China by Lucky? If they are willing to maintain the
same quality control that Kodak did, it would be IMHO a pretty good product.

Now all we have to do is convince them to make some Panatomic-X. :-)
_____
I surely agree with that last comment. I really liked Panatomic-X. It
made very good B&W slides as well. Would buy a batch of 100 rolls to
start with. Wonder what would be involved for Kodak to swing a Tri-X
line around to make a run of Panatomic-X? Is it just the emulsion, or
the emulsion /and/ the base?

/ John

--
Regards / JCH

jch wrote:
I surely agree with that last comment. I really liked Panatomic-X. It
made very good B&W slides as well. Would buy a batch of 100 rolls to
start with. Wonder what would be involved for Kodak to swing a Tri-X
line around to make a run of Panatomic-X? Is it just the emulsion, or
the emulsion /and/ the base?

I expect that the base made today would be very different than the base
used in Pan-X, but IMHO it would not matter. As long as it was a reasonably
clear base (remember the Efke dark grey base?), it's to me the emulsion
that would count.

If it's really Lucky and not Kodak that made it for $2.00 a roll, lots of
people would buy it. I fit were Kodak themselves and they had to charge $10
a roll, a lot less of them would be sold.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

(Geoffrey S. Mendelson) schrieb:

Just as an off the wall thought, didn't Kodak sell their entire factory,
except for the building itself to Lucky in China?

No. Even the mere cooperation was vastly overjudged - Lucky never
learned that much from Kodak but how to run the confection line for
color film.

I thought it was taken apart and moved east, similar in process to what the Soviet Union did
to Germany in 1945.

A process that didn´t work out that well, too - most of the Wolfen
equipment never got installed in Schostka.

Geoff.

Gruss,
Roman
--
"An MDCCCXII/Mémorable par la campagne contre les Russes/
Sous le préfectura de Jules Doazan."
"Vu et approuvé par nous commandant russe de la ville de Coblentz/
le 1er janvier 1814."