Tri-X vs. T-Max 400?

Frank Pittel wrote:
Just Me wrote:
: "Frank Pittel" wrote in message
: ...
: I never heard that Kodak dropped their Tmax lines. They're the finest
: films
: on the market.

: Oy, Frank! I swear it's gotta be something in the Chicago water that makes
: it work.

If could be the talent and ability of the photographer.

No matter what your talent and ability, TMY will NEVER look like or
print like Tri-X. The difficulty with TMY is its curve shape, and
nothing else. There is no secret or mystery to it. No matter what you
do to it, it will not look like Tri-X. It will have more highlight
contrast and less shadow contrast. That makes it less suitable for
outdoor work, where clouds and skies are found. The sky contribtues
flare to the shadows, where TMY has low contrast, making the shadows
even flatter. The sky also is made brighter and contrastier, making it
difficult to print. The attempt to lower print contrast to accomodate
the sky makes the shadows even duller.

In-studio photography is a different story. There, lower flare
conditions exist. TMY is thus less likely to cause problems, because
the lighting ratio can be modified to match better the film's curve.


Why don't you just try
developing the film with Tmax diluted 1:9?(Tmax for roll film and Tmax-rs for
sheet film) I'm assuming you know how to determine proper development time but
if you find your negatives end up to flat or to contrasty let me know and I'll
help you perform the proper tests to determine the proper development time.


--




-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you