Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/26

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Questions about consistancy within a project
From: Rei Shinozuka <shino@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 08:43:08 -0400
References: <p0510030bbad01e0887a2@[192.168.1.33]> <8D832745-77DF-11D7-9ED4-000393AE435E@gilplant.com>

unfortunately, they will seem to be making the 400  versions
of tri-x in some formats and the 320 in others.  

i prefer HP5+ because of the availability of this emulsion
in virtually every conceivable format.

- -rei



On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 08:06:46AM -0400, J. Gilbert Plantinga wrote:
> So far I've pushed the 400TX both 1 and two stops, and next I'm going 
> to try it at 200 and perhaps even 3200 (!). Kodak's time for XTOL 1:1 
> seems right, but they don't recommend any additional time for a 
> one-stop push. My negs came out thin that way, but I've added some time 
> and they look great now. There is still grain, it's finer than the old 
> Tri-X but just as tight, not mushy, and the tonal curve of the new film 
> seems about the same as the old -- gorgeous!
> 
> Gilbert
> 
> On Saturday, April 26, 2003, at 07:43  AM, Christer Almqvist wrote:
> 
> >I may be wrong, but the impression I get is that you are not 
> >thoroughly familiar with all of these films. If that is so, then the 
> >first piece of advice must be: do not use any film on summer long 
> >project unless you have thoroughly tested it and become fully familiar 
> >with it.
> >
> >When testing the films you may find that the Neopan 1600 does not give 
> >you much advantage over a slightly pushed Tri-X, which would then 
> >eliminate one of the three films. From tests that I have read, but not 
> >done myself,  I think the new Tri-X has less grain and more acutance 
> >than the old one. Testers are questioning the correctness of the 
> >developing times published by Kodak, so again test this yourself.
> >
> >If you want to stick to one film you may wish to consider shooting 
> >Tri-X at half the speed on the box, or less, and develop accordingly. 
> >APX 100 is not considered a super-fine-grain-high-acutance film so the 
> >Tri-X may not be far off quality wise. Otherwise both films should be 
> >well suited for the environmental portraits.
> >
> >Please post some sample this fall, and have fun - and lots of success.
> >
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >>I'm currently beginning a summer-long project. At this point I've 
> >>shot three
> >>different films: Tri-X, Neopan 1600, and APS 100, primarily because 
> >>of the
> >>different light I was shooting in. These are all portraits - 
> >>environmental
> >>portraits you might say.
> >>
> >>Is it desirable to shoot with the same film or is changing film okay? 
> >>I think
> >>I'll mostly be using APS 100 but there will be evenings when Tri-X 
> >>will be
> >>required. I hope I won't have the heavy overcast to require the 
> >>Neopan again.
> >>
> >>Your  thoughts would be appreciated.
> >>
> >>Thanks
> >>
> >>Adam
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- -- 
Rei Shinozuka shino@panix.com
Ridgewood, New Jersey

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from Christer Almqvist <chris@almqvist.net> (Re: [Leica] Questions about consistancy within a project)
Message from "J. Gilbert Plantinga" <jgp@gilplant.com> (Re: [Leica] Questions about consistancy within a project)