Re: [Leica] Tri-X

[Ian Stanley <ianstanley@mistral.co.uk>]

At 02:29 AM 10/12/98 -0400, you wrote:

>From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
>To: "Leica-Users@Mejac. Palo-Alto. Ca. Us"
<leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>Subject: [Leica] Tri-X and Diopters - no connection between the two...
>
>1- Tri-X: After years of mucking around with color negative film - usually
>400 asa - and both Illford XP-2 and the Kodak TCN - I recently decided to go
>"back to basics. " (The move was in-part inspired by the fact that my son's
>day job is in a camera store with a good processing operation).
>Anyway...Tri-X...And I have to cast my vote with those who have commented
>that Tri-X and Ms were made for each other. What a revelation! I swear that,
>but for a vacation at some point to some incredibly colorful spot in the
>world, I've shot my last roll of color. Back to 100' rolls of Tri-X and my
>older loader. In addition to the look, etc., there's also the point that I
>just get it developed and a contact sheet made, and when and if I feel like
>getting anything blown up, I can print the 1 or 2 shots on a roll that I
>really care about, rather than drowning in 4x6s from the auto-lab.
>

Greetings,

	I have been using TRI-X Pan 35mm & 4x5 developed in HC110 for so long now
and still find it best suited for the work that I am doing.  When I was
working in Ghana I took in bulk 35mm TRI-X as that was the only way I could
get lots of film past the customs officials there.  Although some of my
favourite prints of those days were made on that film generally I find that
there is a difference between the bulk film and the pre-loaded cassettes. I
also remember reading somewhere that the bulk film was actually designed
for film rather than still cameras.  I can't confirm whether this is true
or not but I do know that I prefer negs from the pre-loaded cassettes
rather than the bulk.  Either way TRI-X is a wonderful film - enjoy.  

	For what it's worth.

Ian Stanley

temporarily in
Kingston, Lewes
Sussex, England