Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/04/10

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

Subject: [Leica] New TriX
From: jls at (Jeffery Smith)
Date: Sat Apr 10 07:08:20 2004

I've been using XTOL 1:1, but my results don't come close to what you're

Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Daniel
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2004 2:27 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: RE: [Leica] New TriX

I understand Jeffery's pain. The new Tri-X with a Minolta scanner (I
we both have Minolta film scanners) is a lousy combination. There's
nothing wrong with the film, it just doesn't work well with Minolta

I dumped the new Tri-X in the beginning until I realized this. Now I've
given it a new chance because Agfa is dumping all 120 film, b/w and
It's not clear whether they are doing this only for the Swedish market,
for the global market.

At any rate, I have to settle for a replacement. Since Tri-X is
everywhere, why fight the system? When I shot some new Tri-x (just this
week) with my Rollei, it forced me to use another scanner than the
and the film works just fine (it has always printed just fine).

And the other shots in that folder are the new Tri-X. All but the last
three are per Kodak's recommendations for Xtol 1:1 (9 minutes at 68/20
degrees). The last three are also Kodak's recommendations (that are no
longer published) for Xtol 1:2 (for the old Tri-X): Xtol 1:2, 10 1/2
minutes, 68/20 degrees.

I feel so drab and plain. Kodak's recommendations usually work for me
right out of the box. No creativity, no monkeying with the times, EI,
I'm such a bore. (Ok, with some films I deviate, usually developing
than the starting point, but not with Tri-X).

If anything, and I'm given a choice between over or underexposing by a
third of a stop (my camera only works in half stops) I go with under

Daniel Ridings

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, Jeffery Smith wrote:

> I share your pain. Now that I scan and use digital, Tri-X went from my
> favorite film to my least favorite film. I'd like to like it. Anyone
> have a recommendation for a good 35mm scanner that can scan Tri-X
> without it looking like crap? So far, developing it in Paterson FX50
> seems to help since it leave very thin negatives.
> Jeffery Smith
> New Orleans, LA
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of
> E. Berube
> Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 8:42 PM
> To:
> Subject: [Leica] New TriX
> Does anyone have a favourite formulation for the new TriX? How does it
> look in
> Rodinal Mark?
> My local most trusted B&W lab guy hates the new TriX with a passion
> prefers
> Bergger and HP5) and indeed all of the new TriX rolls that I've seen
> from his
> lab have the tonality of lith film. He's using D76 for TriX but I know
> not at
> what time/temp. I do not want to send him the film if he isn't having
> good
> time with it so it looks like I'll be processing silver again for my
> shooting (then having it scanned and print via Epson or Frontier.
> I have been out of the B&W darkroom for about a decade.
> I got 20 rolls of the new TriX to push through my Leicas at a really
> nice price
> but don't want to waste them all in experimenting so I'd love a
> off
> point if someone is using the new emulsion with a custom ISO rating, a
> favourite developer or a custom time/temp/agitation choice and is
> the
> results.
> Any help will be greatly appreciated.
> Carpe Luminem,
> Michael Eric Berube
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information
Leica Users Group.
See for more information

In reply to: Message from daniel_ridings at (Daniel Ridings) ([Leica] New TriX)