Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/01/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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