Re: [Leica] Comment on T400CN

[Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>]

"Clompus, Dr. Richard [INN]" wrote:
> 
> Dear Fellow LUGnuts,
> 
> I too experienced somewhat flat images with T400CN compared to Tri-X film.
> The TC400N was much  more difficult to print.  Often when I finally get to a
> good enlarger exposure (aperture and time), it is about the same for most of
> the negatives on a roll that have similar exposures.  The T400CN I printed
> varied greatly from shot to shot even though the negatives looked about the
> same density.  I had to use contrast grades from 3 to 4 to get more snap
> into the prints.  I was using variable grade RC printing paper.
> 
> I have since gone back to Tri-X.  Funny thing about Tri-X.  When I was in
> college 25 years ago, it was pretty grainy film.  I shot a lot of Plus-X at
> the time because I didn't like the excessive grain.  Tri-X made in 1999
> looks more like Plus-X from 1975.  I guess film quality has improved a bit
> over the years - or I'm just showing my age.  Maybe I should get my eyes
> examined again.
> 
> Happy Shooting,
> 
> Richard Clompus, OD
> Virginia

I always thought Tri X was only slightly more grainy than Plus X but Plus X had
more brilliance and for me worked better for portraiture and fashion because of
that different shape of characteristic curve. It is now still the 220 film I
have in stock. Tri X now in Xtol gives better grain than my previous efforts
with Plus X in Beutlers, D76 1:1, my own developer and certainly Rodinal at
1:50. I will be curious the effect I get from Plus X in Xtol. I'm sure the
results will make it able for me to shoot 35mm plus X in the studio. I used to
shoot Pan F in Rodinal in the studio. But I think I could for portraiture and
fashion also very probably be able to go with Delta 400 or TMax 400. I think
they both would deliver enough brilliance...and faster strobe recycling times.
With Xtol grain is no longer the issue. (for me)
Mark Rabiner