A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tri-X turns 60



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 14th 14, 01:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
J. Clarke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,273
Default Tri-X turns 60

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...


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.


  #12  
Old March 14th 14, 02:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 821
Default Tri-X turns 60

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
  #13  
Old March 14th 14, 08:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Oregonian Haruspex
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 94
Default Tri-X turns 60

On 2014-03-14 13:43:36 +0000, J. Clarke said:

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...


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.


I don't know, I like UFG single mix, but I'm lazy and it is very
forgiving. Everybody eventually finds a favorite developer.

  #14  
Old March 14th 14, 10:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Tri-X turns 60




On 3/14/14 8:43 AM, in article
, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

On Thursday, 13 March 2014 22:32:57 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 13/03/2014 19:20, George Kerby wrote:

Nice article about Kodaks best B&W film...




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

r?page=full






I preferred FP4. Kodachrome II every time for colour, though.


I didn't think Tr-X was similar use to FP4. I prefered HP4 over tri X not sure
why, might have been because it was cheaper, and could be brought on 50ft
rolls.


So could most all of Kodak's B&W line.

  #15  
Old March 14th 14, 10:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Tri-X turns 60




On 3/14/14 8:43 AM, in article ,
"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/content/features/bryan-appleyard/tri-x-fact
o

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...


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.


Agreed. There is NO best for anything, but Microdol-X was what was the most
popular and what Kodak recommended on it's enclosed data sheet. And I do
remember those Kodak Data guide for B&W recommending HC110. I can't find
mine right now either, but came across the Color Data guide which listed the
procedure of processing E-3 Ektachrome. (remember the step where you pull it
out and expose it to light?)

  #16  
Old March 14th 14, 10:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Tri-X turns 60




On 3/14/14 9:08 AM, in article , "Martin Brown"
wrote:

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...yard/tri-x-fac
to

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.


I spent so much time in the B&W darkroom that the finger nails turned
yellow. That wasn't as bad as a guy I knew back then who would eat his lunch
by the glow of the amber safelight.

  #17  
Old March 15th 14, 01:34 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
J. Clarke[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,273
Default Tri-X turns 60

In article ,
says...

On 3/14/14 8:43 AM, in article
,
"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/content/features/bryan-appleyard/tri-x-fact
o

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...


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.


Agreed. There is NO best for anything, but Microdol-X was what was the most
popular and what Kodak recommended on it's enclosed data sheet. And I do
remember those Kodak Data guide for B&W recommending HC110. I can't find
mine right now either, but came across the Color Data guide which listed the
procedure of processing E-3 Ektachrome. (remember the step where you pull it
out and expose it to light?)


E-3 was before my time--my mother could do E-3 but never did it after I
was born.


  #18  
Old March 16th 14, 07:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.misc
Bowser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default Tri-X turns 60

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:45:00 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 3/13/14 5:50 PM, in article
[email protected], "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2014-03-13 22:32:57 +0000, newshound said:

On 13/03/2014 19:20, George Kerby wrote:
Nice article about Kodaks best B&W film...

http://moreintelligentlife.com/conte...rd/tri-x-facto
r?page=full


I preferred FP4. Kodachrome II every time for colour, though.


The last time I used Tri-X was back in 1971 when I still had a wet darkroom.


Stainless steel reels, or those plastic ones where you "worked" the roll on
from the outside to the center?

When I conquered the ss reels and loaded film without any crimps,
undeveloped area, or resulting 'half-moons', I thought I was king of the
world!


Stainless steel! Hated those Patterson tanks and reels. I could never
completely clean the plastic tanks and reels.
  #19  
Old March 16th 14, 07:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mort[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 396
Default Tri-X turns 60

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.



The Adox line of black-and-white films was superb, with excellent
sharpness and tonal scale. After production ceased in Germany, they were
made for a while in the old Yugoslavia, but the quality was not up to
par. Their names included their DIN "speed" numbers.

Mort Linder
  #20  
Old March 17th 14, 01:18 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Michael[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 313
Default Tri-X turns 60

On 2014-03-14 01:39:44 +0000, J. Clarke said:

In article ,
says...

On 3/13/14 5:50 PM, in article
[email protected], "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2014-03-13 22:32:57 +0000, newshound said:

On 13/03/2014 19:20, George Kerby wrote:
Nice article about Kodaks best B&W film...

http://moreintelligentlife.com/conte...rd/tri-x-facto
r?page=full


I preferred FP4. Kodachrome II every time for colour, though.

The last time I used Tri-X was back in 1971 when I still had a wet darkroom.


Stainless steel reels, or those plastic ones where you "worked" the roll on
from the outside to the center?

When I conquered the ss reels and loaded film without any crimps,
undeveloped area, or resulting 'half-moons', I thought I was king of the
world!


Now try doing that in the trunk to a Volvo sometime because it's the
only place to which you have access that is dark enough after your
changing bag blew away.


Well, the next time I develop film in my car I'll remember that.
--
Michael

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Plastic turns Rich into idiot Ray Fischer Digital SLR Cameras 2 November 17th 09 08:42 PM
REALLY TURNS ME ON!!! [email protected] Digital Photography 1 March 27th 08 06:56 AM
Nikon lens turns to gold! RichA Digital SLR Cameras 10 July 15th 07 11:38 PM
Coolpix 3100 turns off after splash screen [email protected] Digital Photography 11 April 1st 07 06:20 AM
Scanned photo turns out ok, but Print is much too Red Ritter197 Digital Photography 18 December 14th 04 03:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.