Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/01/28

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] sh be Tmx 3200-1600/ws TrX 800-LONGISH
From: Luc Bourgeois <luc@forcemajeure.qc.ca>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 01:27:32 -0500

On Mardi (that would be Tuesday), janvier (that would be January - this 
Mac drives me nuts) 27, 2004, at 11:03  AM, Gary Klein wrote a lot of 
stuff, including:

> 640 is in my view the
> sweetest spot of Tri-X.

Gary,

How does it feel to find your silver halide's sweet spot? It's the 
getting there that's fun too, no?

Thanks for an extensive and very insightful post.  Now the following is 
'moron' Tri-x ...  For chemical geeks only. And I'm the morooner.

For me the positive thing about rating a film has been getting to know 
my metering method, understanding how light will end up on the print, 
or at least deciding where I want it to be, hopefully enabling me to 
decide where in the zone of tonal ranges I want to place my main 
subject(s).

As a side note, it's friggin darn hard to integrate zone system large 
format theory and methods into daily or quasi-daily 35mm photography. 
But it does work well with Leicas since they're simple and pure 
lightboxes akin to view cameras... Anyhow, 'Zone Systemology', as 
preached by the disciples of saviour Adams, is rigid, though, 
hyper-technical and anal retentive. I love the prints, some are just 
breathtaking, but, hey, get a Leica and live a little. (Okay, I'm sure 
Ansel came to life with his view camera, would'nt you say?) But please 
Zoners, stop staring at that Zone 7.5 glacier! But wait! The zone 
system knowledge is a real good thing for all B&W film photogs. In fact 
the masters of 35mm have been gravitating around these methods since 
the mid century. They just didn't have a 'full' system defined, nor did 
they base it on densitometric knowledge. I don't think they wore lab 
coats either, but I digress into fashion photography again when this 
exposure stuff is darn serious. Reminds me of a perfect example: Sieff 
for sure knew his poop quite well. Optimally Zoned prints? Naahver! 
ISO-Dev-Time knowledge? Big time. What he did was not the perfect thing 
in a technical sense, but his tonal style was consistent for decades. 
Did he know the perfect way? Sure, had to. But that was not him.

If you're into sound, 'zoning' a film is like dialing in the proper 
compression ratio for the dynamic range of the medium you're mixing to. 
In the recording studio the tool for that is a compressor or an 
expander,  boxes or software with audio connections and dials affecting 
decibel range output.

In chemical photography you'll use film, filters, developers, 
temperature, agitation (not your mental state, but the film and dev.) 
and time (did I forget anything?) to fit a span of light onto a 
negative, then onto a print. In Digital Land, you use your recently 
acquired yet outdated Digitalia. But that does not interest me because 
I love photography so much, I like it messy, confusing, very 
complicated, archaic, negative, unique, and time-consuming. (Kind of 
like my girlfriends)

I'm thinking a lot about Tri-X lately, being on this silver-halide 
pilgrimage in Rochester, trying to figure where to rate it, in what 
conditions. Here's where I'm at: My simple tests in desitometry (and - 
no - I was not wearing a lab coat) have shown Tri-x's ideal ISO is 200. 
Typically I'd like a stop or 2 more indoors, so I shoot at 800 for that 
and accept the highlights, if any, likely will be blocked. Note: 
they're probably not going to be interesting highlights like skies, 
since I'm indoors. These will be lights, ceiling, lampshades... No 
great loss.

Tri-X at 200 responds so nicely it can be perceived as too straight, 
too clean, too 'zone-systemish...'. In other words, it might have the 
benefit of being very flexible under the enlarger, but might lack the 
character you require. Question of taste. There's the film, there's the 
lightmeter, (make sure your shutter speeds are accurate too; Leicas are 
obviously the most accurate), there's the developper, there's the 
Gralab and tap: have fun.

But at 200, Tri=X is going to peak out in high contrast situations such 
as shade and bright luminosity, or sky. These bright subjects will 
likely be 'whited out' on a sunny day. One must compress. So my outdoor 
rating is at 200, with an N-1 (normal dev. time, minus 1 Zone level - 
about 20% less time in the soup for me with my D76 or HC 110). Since 
the later times in the developer work mostly on the darks of the 
negative, or if you prefer, the whites of the print. Thus the Zonish 
expression: meter and shoot considering the shadows, develop 
considering the highs. Whoa, freaky-deaky glacier dude!

Shooting Tri-x indoors and outdoors at 400 seems an acceptable 
compromise if you don't have two Leica Ms to feed Kodak to. (Because 
you've worked so hard figuring all this out and tweaked your 'lil butt 
off, please only use Leica M bodies for different shooting conditions 
and development times). So if you got one camera you're lugging around, 
Tri-x at 400 might be the way to go. According to the true ISO, you'd 
be shooting one stop (or one zone) under, essentially trading off loss 
of detail in the low values for a 1 stop insurance against blocking out 
the highs.

So maybe Kodak isn't so wrong after all in rating Tri-x at 400. Truly a 
Rochester epiphany here. 'All raise...'

So Gary, at 640 you're a half-stop away from me brother. I'm sure 
you're an agitator, that must be your secret. In finishing, my brain 
would crash at 640 ISO. I can't imagine thinking in half-steps, I'm so 
locked in to 200, 400, 1600...

Friday I go to Eastman House. As grandpa used to say: first work, then 
play.

Long live Tri-x, at any ISO.

Peace bro.

LB

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