Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/04/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]"B. D. Colen" wrote: > > Dan Cardish wrote: > > > > If it works for him at 800 and it works for him at 200, funny how it ><Snip> ith my Developers the number on the box is right on the money! > > I may be missing something here, but I don't think Mark is saying Tri-X > doesn't work for Jim Marshall at 400, only that he doesn't shoot it at > 400. Big difference. > B. D. For someone of Jim Marshals background to NOT push Tri x a stop would be a real statement. This is par for the course. It's just a little interesting that when Marshall wants to make a quality statement; or when he is going for something which there is a real tonal range issue: a problem shot he pulls Tri x instead of pushing it. And stock one film. This instead of stocking Plus x. I don't think Plus x goes down well with these guys. They're not going to be caught dead with anything But Tri X. For me this would make even more sense if Tri X really was the Tri X it was in the 60's and 70's and early 80's. But it's been tweaked and it's "resonance" remaining now is questionable. It's certainly got more "soul" than Tab grain films but at a great loss of both grain and sharpness. And at 35mm these lackings get blown up to be real evident. Put some 120 Tri X regular in your Rolleiflex TLR or Hasselblad sure! But at 35mm that lack of sharpness and fine grain gets very evident. Mark Rabiner to be continued.... Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/