On Jul 14, 2006, at 5:28 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Is Tri-X no longer King of the Hill? Do digi shooters care? > http://www.lookingglassphoto.com/funwfilm.html
My Tri-X vs TMax 400 testing was done between 2000 and 2002. I had already standardized on XTOL developer and found that TMax 400 was preferable, rated at 320, 400, 640, 800 and 1600. It presented tighter, more consistent grain structure and better tonal differentiation with higher acutance. It took me about 20 rolls of processing to figure out how to develop TMax correctly though. I found that unlike Delta 400, APX 400, and Tri-X, TMax films *require* much greater agitation throughout the development process in the same developer using the same reference standards for density and gamma as all the others. I suspect this is so because Kodak formulated it for machine processing with continuous agitation. Once I figured this out, my TMax work proved that these are films of exceptional quality. TMax 100, rated at EI 200 and processed in XTOL 1:1, proves to have acutance and tonality remarkably similar to APX 25 (@EI 50 in XTOL 1:1) with only a modest increase in grain. TMax 400 holds grain and actuance from EI800-1600 *much* better than Tri-X (and lightyears better than APX 400!). I started to work with Acros and Neopan right around the beginning of 2002, but then I bought my first quality digital camera and decided that I had had enough of experimenting and just shot what I knew worked well for me in film. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
