Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/07/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Daniel, It is good that you brought this up. The camera store where I buy my film is trying not to buy Fuji B&W so I have had to use TX for the last twenty rolls or so. I had tried a roll when the emulsion changed and had poor results so I didn't bother for what three years. What is odd is that it works possibly better than the Neopan 400 that I have ben using. Xtol at 1:2 for 12.5 minutes at 68 F with agitation for the first minute then 10 seconds every two minutes after that. Where I think I am at is that whichever is cheaper at the time I purchase is the emulsion I will buy. Don don.dory@gmail.com On 7/4/05, Daniel Ridings <dlridings@gmail.com> wrote: > I've never been able to accept that I couldn't get the "new" 400TX to > work for me like I could the old one from two or three years ago. So > now and then I buy 10 rolls or so and give it a try again. Most of the > time I've ended up giving the remainder away after failing for a few > rolls. > > I got a question on another list about how 400tx compares to HP5+. So > I tried again. > > http://www.dlridings.com/paw2005/05v27-0002.jpg > > M2, 50/2.8 Elmar (old), 1/60 @ 4.0, HC110 dil B, 5 1/2 minutes at 68 > degrees > > It was the shot of Ewa in the restaurant that brought on the question. > I posted it yesterday, but put it here for easy reference. Both shots > are with window lighting. > > http://www.dlridings.com/paw2005/26alt1.html > > I could probably make friends with 400TX again. Don't know if I will. > HP5+ handles easier for me in a variety of conditions, but 400TX feels > better. I felt like a failed photographer if I couldn't get decent > results with a well known and reliable film. > > Best, > Daniel > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >