I keep hearing the true speed of Tri-X

[lushd]

It's a fair cop! I meant that light is not the same the world over.

 

[steve garza]

Todd,

Todd,

the true speed of Tri-X is a personal thing, it depends on your developer/your developing technique/ etc., etc., etc. On bright days I shoot it at 200, overcast and rainy maybe 400. Most of my Tri-X is souped in Xtol or D76 1:1, YMMV.

the first one is rated at 100 in shaded light: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=50627&ppuser=489

This one was rated at 800: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=35623&ppuser=489

I find Tri-X to be one of the most versatile films around, good luck!

Todd

I love the tones you coax from tri-x w/ this recipe. I will difinitely try this.

 

[kaiyen]

excuse me but a trad. BW film at 400 or at 320...what's the difference??? Two digits in the numbers! DO you seriously think you can meter and develop so consistently that 1/3 stop makes a difference?

Yes, I do. 🙂

If you look under a densitometer, there is certainly a difference from 320 to 400. Under a loupe, it's a lot harder to see, but I can see the difference between 250 and 400. So if I can see that with the naked eye, then I ask myself if it's 250 or 320 (which is hard to see with the naked eye). I tend to go with the higher of the 2 (the extra 1/3 stop is useful, I'll admit).

But I absolutely do think that, using exacting metering methods (spot on shadows) and development times (down to 15 second increments) yields differences.

allan

 

[kaiyen]

Todd,
Not to sound critical - remember that I was the one that asked you to get an RSS feed on your blog because I liked your work so much 🙂 - but I'm actually surprised at the shadow detail of TXT @ 100 in D76 1+1. Not as much as I'd hope. Did you apply a curve to bring the shadows back down?

allan

 

[GWHomeyer]

excuse me but a trad. BW film at 400 or at 320...what's the difference??? Two digits in the numbers! DO you seriously think you can meter and develop so consistently that 1/3 stop makes a difference?

When I over or under rate a film speed, it's because I've done a full film test and the speed I rate it at, with the given developer and developing technique used for the test, gives me the best shadow detail. Same for modifying development time to get proper highlight detail. Now, if I was shooting on the fly, no it probably wouldn't make a lot of difference. But I tend to shoot zone a lot (the only thing I shoot more than my rangefinders are my 4x5's), and yes, I do get that accurate on exposure and development in those cases.

The main reason is that if I'm going to run full film tests for zone, I might as well use what I found there for every other kind of shooting as well. That way, if the exposure is off at all, it was me and the camera settings that did it, and not because the film speed is off.

Not trying to sound arrogant, but at least for me, when I shoot zone, 1/3 of a stop is apparant in the neg quite often.