Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] what's the difference?
From: Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:28:27 -0800

At 4:32 PM -0800 3/12/02, Feliciano di Giorgio wrote:
>Hmmm, I've knew that, but I wonder why the difference in asa (320 pro
>vs. 400 consumer).
>
>feli
>
>Andrew Touchon wrote:
>>
>>  The professional films are more sensitive to storage conditions (heat) than
>>  the regular films.  I have used both types and I can't really tell the
>>  difference in quality.  However, I imagine that if you did scientific
>>  testing, you would find the professional films to be a slightly better
>  > product.
>

They are quite different emulsions, as well as bases. The Tri-X pro 
has a longer toe and shoulder to hold highlights and shadow detail 
better. It's a bit grainier, which hardly ever comes up since the 
TX-pro is available in 120 and larger sizes and TX regular is 35mm. 
Because of these differences, I hardly ever shoot them side by side 
if I have to shoot B&W in 35 and larger at the same time.

The fact that they are both called Tri-X is what's confusing, as the 
only thing they have in common is that they are both nearly the same 
speed and are both from Kodak.


- ----oops.....  The regular TX is also available in 120, of course. I 
had 4x5 in my head when talking about the unavailability of the TX 
regular.

- -- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html