Tri-X turns 60

In article ,
says...

On 3/13/14 11:33 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:20:05 PM UTC-4, George Kerby wrote:
Nice article about Kodaks best B&W film...



http://moreintelligentlife.com/conte...rd/tri-x-facto

r?page=full

Kodak's best was Tech Pan, it was beyond the capability of lenses. Tri-X was
grainy and only used by news photogs because they understood how it
functioned. HP-5 was better in the 1980's and currently, T-Max is much better
as is XP-2, a chromogenic B&W film. The best developer for conventional black
and white films, if you can still find it, is Agfa Refinal.

Nope, Microdol-X...

Depends on what you're trying to do. Microdol softens grain boundaries
a bit making for a less grainy appearance. OTOH you can achieve usable
images at 4000 ISO from Tri-X using HC-110 Replenisher (not the
developer) (and no, I don't have the procedure--it was on a note tucked
into my Photo Lab Index that was destroyed when the basement flooded a
while back). Saying that one process is "the best" ignores the issue of
purpose.

On 14/03/2014 13:43, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/13/14 11:33 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:20:05 PM UTC-4, George Kerby wrote:
Nice article about Kodaks best B&W film...



http://moreintelligentlife.com/conte...rd/tri-x-facto

r?page=full

Kodak's best was Tech Pan, it was beyond the capability of lenses. Tri-X was
grainy and only used by news photogs because they understood how it
functioned. HP-5 was better in the 1980's and currently, T-Max is much better
as is XP-2, a chromogenic B&W film. The best developer for conventional black
and white films, if you can still find it, is Agfa Refinal.

Nope, Microdol-X...

I liked Ilford FP4 for general use back then.

Depends on what you're trying to do. Microdol softens grain boundaries
a bit making for a less grainy appearance. OTOH you can achieve usable
images at 4000 ISO from Tri-X using HC-110 Replenisher (not the
developer) (and no, I don't have the procedure--it was on a note tucked
into my Photo Lab Index that was destroyed when the basement flooded a
while back). Saying that one process is "the best" ignores the issue of
purpose.


Kodak D-11 used to be good for pushing Tri-X hard (and some other
scientific films). It all depended what effect you needed.

I don't really miss wet chemistry darkroom work. I have had more than my
fill of stop bath and fixer smells and still vividly recall choking on
the fumes from Cibachrome colour print chemistry - as the instructions
so coyly put it this solution may dissolve some metals - like chrome,
iron, lead and copper. Fail to put the neutraliser powder in before
disposing of it and you ended up choking in clouds of SO2.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 2014-03-14 13:43:36 +0000, J. Clarke said:

In article ,
says...

On 3/13/14 11:33 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:20:05 PM UTC-4, George Kerby wrote:
Nice article about Kodaks best B&W film...



http://moreintelligentlife.com/conte...rd/tri-x-facto

r?page=full

Kodak's best was Tech Pan, it was beyond the capability of lenses. Tri-X was
grainy and only used by news photogs because they understood how it
functioned. HP-5 was better in the 1980's and currently, T-Max is much better
as is XP-2, a chromogenic B&W film. The best developer for conventional black
and white films, if you can still find it, is Agfa Refinal.

Nope, Microdol-X...

Depends on what you're trying to do. Microdol softens grain boundaries
a bit making for a less grainy appearance. OTOH you can achieve usable
images at 4000 ISO from Tri-X using HC-110 Replenisher (not the
developer) (and no, I don't have the procedure--it was on a note tucked
into my Photo Lab Index that was destroyed when the basement flooded a
while back). Saying that one process is "the best" ignores the issue of
purpose.

I don't know, I like UFG single mix, but I'm lazy and it is very
forgiving. Everybody eventually finds a favorite developer.

On 3/14/14 8:43 AM, in article
, "Whisky-dave"
wrote:

On Thursday, 13 March 2014 22:32:57 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 13/03/2014 19:20, George Kerby wrote:

Nice article about Kodaks best B&W film...



http://moreintelligentlife.com/conte...rd/tri-x-facto

r?page=full





I preferred FP4. Kodachrome II every time for colour, though.

I didn't think Tr-X was similar use to FP4. I prefered HP4 over tri X not sure
why, might have been because it was cheaper, and could be brought on 50ft
rolls.


So could most all of Kodak's B&W line.

On 3/14/14 8:43 AM, in article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 3/13/14 11:33 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:20:05 PM UTC-4, George Kerby wrote:
Nice article about Kodaks best B&W film...




http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/features/bryan-appleyard/tri-x-fact
o

r?page=full

Kodak's best was Tech Pan, it was beyond the capability of lenses. Tri-X
was
grainy and only used by news photogs because they understood how it
functioned. HP-5 was better in the 1980's and currently, T-Max is much
better
as is XP-2, a chromogenic B&W film. The best developer for conventional
black
and white films, if you can still find it, is Agfa Refinal.

Nope, Microdol-X...

Depends on what you're trying to do. Microdol softens grain boundaries
a bit making for a less grainy appearance. OTOH you can achieve usable
images at 4000 ISO from Tri-X using HC-110 Replenisher (not the
developer) (and no, I don't have the procedure--it was on a note tucked
into my Photo Lab Index that was destroyed when the basement flooded a
while back). Saying that one process is "the best" ignores the issue of
purpose.


Agreed. There is NO best for anything, but Microdol-X was what was the most
popular and what Kodak recommended on it's enclosed data sheet. And I do
remember those Kodak Data guide for B&W recommending HC110. I can't find
mine right now either, but came across the Color Data guide which listed the
procedure of processing E-3 Ektachrome. (remember the step where you pull it
out and expose it to light?)

On 3/14/14 9:08 AM, in article , "Martin Brown"
wrote:

On 14/03/2014 13:43, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/13/14 11:33 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:20:05 PM UTC-4, George Kerby wrote:
Nice article about Kodaks best B&W film...



http://moreintelligentlife.com/conte...yard/tri-x-fac
to

r?page=full

Kodak's best was Tech Pan, it was beyond the capability of lenses. Tri-X
was
grainy and only used by news photogs because they understood how it
functioned. HP-5 was better in the 1980's and currently, T-Max is much
better
as is XP-2, a chromogenic B&W film. The best developer for conventional
black
and white films, if you can still find it, is Agfa Refinal.

Nope, Microdol-X...

I liked Ilford FP4 for general use back then.

Depends on what you're trying to do. Microdol softens grain boundaries
a bit making for a less grainy appearance. OTOH you can achieve usable
images at 4000 ISO from Tri-X using HC-110 Replenisher (not the
developer) (and no, I don't have the procedure--it was on a note tucked
into my Photo Lab Index that was destroyed when the basement flooded a
while back). Saying that one process is "the best" ignores the issue of
purpose.


Kodak D-11 used to be good for pushing Tri-X hard (and some other
scientific films). It all depended what effect you needed.

I don't really miss wet chemistry darkroom work. I have had more than my
fill of stop bath and fixer smells and still vividly recall choking on
the fumes from Cibachrome colour print chemistry - as the instructions
so coyly put it this solution may dissolve some metals - like chrome,
iron, lead and copper. Fail to put the neutraliser powder in before
disposing of it and you ended up choking in clouds of SO2.

I spent so much time in the B&W darkroom that the finger nails turned
yellow. That wasn't as bad as a guy I knew back then who would eat his lunch
by the glow of the amber safelight.

In article ,
says...

On 3/14/14 8:43 AM, in article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 3/13/14 11:33 PM, in article
, "RichA"
wrote:

On Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:20:05 PM UTC-4, George Kerby wrote:
Nice article about Kodaks best B&W film...




http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/features/bryan-appleyard/tri-x-fact
o

r?page=full

Kodak's best was Tech Pan, it was beyond the capability of lenses. Tri-X
was
grainy and only used by news photogs because they understood how it
functioned. HP-5 was better in the 1980's and currently, T-Max is much
better
as is XP-2, a chromogenic B&W film. The best developer for conventional
black
and white films, if you can still find it, is Agfa Refinal.

Nope, Microdol-X...

Depends on what you're trying to do. Microdol softens grain boundaries
a bit making for a less grainy appearance. OTOH you can achieve usable
images at 4000 ISO from Tri-X using HC-110 Replenisher (not the
developer) (and no, I don't have the procedure--it was on a note tucked
into my Photo Lab Index that was destroyed when the basement flooded a
while back). Saying that one process is "the best" ignores the issue of
purpose.


Agreed. There is NO best for anything, but Microdol-X was what was the most
popular and what Kodak recommended on it's enclosed data sheet. And I do
remember those Kodak Data guide for B&W recommending HC110. I can't find
mine right now either, but came across the Color Data guide which listed the
procedure of processing E-3 Ektachrome. (remember the step where you pull it
out and expose it to light?)

E-3 was before my time--my mother could do E-3 but never did it after I
was born.

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:45:00 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 3/13/14 5:50 PM, in article
2014031315504673476-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2014-03-13 22:32:57 +0000, newshound said:

On 13/03/2014 19:20, George Kerby wrote:
Nice article about Kodaks best B&W film...

http://moreintelligentlife.com/conte...rd/tri-x-facto
r?page=full


I preferred FP4. Kodachrome II every time for colour, though.

The last time I used Tri-X was back in 1971 when I still had a wet darkroom.

Stainless steel reels, or those plastic ones where you "worked" the roll on
from the outside to the center?

When I conquered the ss reels and loaded film without any crimps,
undeveloped area, or resulting 'half-moons', I thought I was king of the
world!

Stainless steel! Hated those Patterson tanks and reels. I could never
completely clean the plastic tanks and reels.

RichA wrote:
On Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:20:05 PM UTC-4, George Kerby wrote:
Nice article about Kodaks best B&W film...



http://moreintelligentlife.com/conte...rd/tri-x-facto

r?page=full

Kodak's best was Tech Pan, it was beyond the capability of lenses. Tri-X was grainy and only used by news photogs because they understood how it functioned. HP-5 was better in the 1980's and currently, T-Max is much better as is XP-2, a chromogenic B&W film. The best developer for conventional black and white films, if you can still find it, is Agfa Refinal.



The Adox line of black-and-white films was superb, with excellent
sharpness and tonal scale. After production ceased in Germany, they were
made for a while in the old Yugoslavia, but the quality was not up to
par. Their names included their DIN "speed" numbers.

Mort Linder

On 2014-03-14 01:39:44 +0000, J. Clarke said:

In article ,
says...

On 3/13/14 5:50 PM, in article
2014031315504673476-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2014-03-13 22:32:57 +0000, newshound said:

On 13/03/2014 19:20, George Kerby wrote:
Nice article about Kodaks best B&W film...

http://moreintelligentlife.com/conte...rd/tri-x-facto
r?page=full


I preferred FP4. Kodachrome II every time for colour, though.

The last time I used Tri-X was back in 1971 when I still had a wet darkroom.

Stainless steel reels, or those plastic ones where you "worked" the roll on
from the outside to the center?

When I conquered the ss reels and loaded film without any crimps,
undeveloped area, or resulting 'half-moons', I thought I was king of the
world!

Now try doing that in the trunk to a Volvo sometime because it's the
only place to which you have access that is dark enough after your
changing bag blew away.

Well, the next time I develop film in my car I'll remember that.
--
Michael