icebear
Veteran
AMEN brother,
and thou shall not stray into the evil land of pixel and photoshop :angel:
Marlon dela Cruz
Marlon
Amen!!
My favourite combo is Tri-X pushed to 1600 in X-Tol 1:3 dillution! Match made heaven!
My favourite combo is Tri-X pushed to 1600 in X-Tol 1:3 dillution! Match made heaven!
bmattock
Veteran
Ah, a Reformed Kodakerist. I'm Orthodox, still using D76. But I we can still break bread together.
marke
Well-known
capitalK, I don't know if you're aware of this, but you can get Freestyle's house-brand film, called Arista Premium 400, for about half the price of Tri-X. And most people who have tried it, swear it's actually the same film.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/192364-Arista-Premium-BandW-400-ISO-35mm-x-36-exp.?cat_id=402
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/192364-Arista-Premium-BandW-400-ISO-35mm-x-36-exp.?cat_id=402
Nh3
Well-known
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
Yeah, a fellow RFF member who lives in the same city bought a bunch recently.
R
ruben
Guest
Sorry folks and kindly excuss me, but what the hell can any of us understand from tiny screen computer images ?
With all due respect, Nh3, your image seems to suggest you are a master film ph technician. And you may be indeed, despite your image shows a very favourable low contrast at the race, against your claim of iso 3200. But perhaps you have just better scanned your neg, or used a much better scaner than Trius and capitalK ?
The same question goes for you too, Trius and capitalK - starting with capitalK, what can we possibly see about your negs from these small sized images ?
Now kindly you all scan with the same scaner, using the same scanning techique, enlarge the picture to 100 cm x 100cm, then post just a tenth of it, and perhaps, just perhaps, we may start seeing something about film qualities, film processing, film developers - etc.
Sorry again,
Ruben
(an atheist)
With all due respect, Nh3, your image seems to suggest you are a master film ph technician. And you may be indeed, despite your image shows a very favourable low contrast at the race, against your claim of iso 3200. But perhaps you have just better scanned your neg, or used a much better scaner than Trius and capitalK ?
The same question goes for you too, Trius and capitalK - starting with capitalK, what can we possibly see about your negs from these small sized images ?
Now kindly you all scan with the same scaner, using the same scanning techique, enlarge the picture to 100 cm x 100cm, then post just a tenth of it, and perhaps, just perhaps, we may start seeing something about film qualities, film processing, film developers - etc.
Sorry again,
Ruben
(an atheist)
Last edited by a moderator:
funkaoshi
Well-known
Nh3, you may want to rescan that image to get rid of the newton rings. Also, save it at a higher JPEG setting to get rid of all the digital artifacts. I don't think you're going to sell anyone on Tri-X + Rodinal with the image you posted.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Ruben: you and I are thinking the same here. But then I am one of those that believes the world already has too many technically excellent but absolutely boring photos already.
thetooth
Well-known
i use this recipe and can vouch for it .
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Tri-X and D76 is a classic combo @ 400asa or less. I prefer Divided D76, because it prevents the highlights from blocking up and gets you good shadow detail and grain. Also try Barry Thornton's 2-Bath (400asa). Three ingredients and can be mixed in minutes.
If you're going to push Tri-X as high as 1250 or 1600 Diafine, XTOL or DD-X are good picks.
If you're going to push Tri-X as high as 1250 or 1600 Diafine, XTOL or DD-X are good picks.
capitalK
Warrior Poet :P
You're welcome to come visit Canada anytime to see my prints. I don't know if there's any other way to appease you
Maybe if you saw them you would lament that they are only on RC paper, not fibre? Until then low-res resized scans will have to do. I agree that the web is not necessarily the best medium for viewing B&W photos.
In the meantime I'm just excited to be trying something new.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Mr. Harry Lime, I have been using Barry Thornton's teaspoon two bath (actually, my version of it), and I'm wondering if you have ever tried it. I use it with Rodinal or HC-110 but you could use it with D-76 and TriX. It seems to work for me, so I wondering if the extra effort of Barry Thornton's original formula is really needed. It's not that hard to control highlights with TriX, but I especially like it with TMax100 (which is a little harder film to control the highlights, at least for me). Or if a 'Third Man' has a TriX two bath opinion, that would be nice too.
40oz
...
I'm just going to remind people that whatever images we get to see of Tri-X on this board are those scanned for our pleasure. Asking people to "do a better job please" is out of bounds. You might as well say "don't bother if that's all you got."
I, for one, will not bother to rescan purely for the convenience of a forum member who wants some kind of scientific data for a personal project. Even if it's for Ruben
Just for fun, here's a crappy scan of a crappy shot on Tri-X (Those are my friends, not random bar patrons) :
http://lakespc.com/pics/BlackAndWhite/TriX_At_6400/Haley.jpg
I, for one, will not bother to rescan purely for the convenience of a forum member who wants some kind of scientific data for a personal project. Even if it's for Ruben
Just for fun, here's a crappy scan of a crappy shot on Tri-X (Those are my friends, not random bar patrons) :
http://lakespc.com/pics/BlackAndWhite/TriX_At_6400/Haley.jpg
Last edited:
dof
Fiat Lux
I'm just going to remind people that whatever images we get to see of Tri-X on this board are those scanned for our pleasure. Asking people to "do a better job please" is out of bounds. You might as well say "don't bother if that's all you got."
I, for one, will not bother to rescan purely for the convenience of a forum member who wants some kind of scientific data for a personal project. Even if it's for Ruben
[/url]
Agreed. Fully.
I recently posted comparison images shot and processed purely for the purpose of answering a question posted here. When the responses posted all read along the lines of, "You can't tell ANYTHING from these small images, etc.", well, I learned to simply not bother as well.
To the original spirit of this thread and its poster - As a long time, monogamous Tri-X user, I've found the temptation to adulterate with NeoPan 400 or HP5 Plus fueled by threads here and elsewhere almost worth considering. Thanks for reminding me of how good I have it, right here at home with those familiar yellow boxes!
Ta,
-J.
Nh3
Well-known
Ruben, in the words of Julies Caesar, "I came, I saw, I pressed the shutter!"
Nh3
Well-known
R
ruben
Guest
You're welcome to come visit Canada anytime to see my prints. I don't know if there's any other way to appease you
Until then low-res resized scans will have to do. I agree that the web is not necessarily the best medium for viewing B&W photos.
In the meantime I'm just excited to be trying something new.
Dear capitalK,
I will be most pleased to actually see your high aesthetical prints, or even just travel to Canada to help that nice lady fight CIA infiltration into Canada's "Intelligence One" tv series, or her own domestic treacherous politicians there.
But my point was that computer screen images lie about the original neg tech qualities, furthermore when other photogs prints are shown for comparizon. This is about grain and other film and processing qualities - not about aesthetics, for which your images suggest you are indeed strong.
Now, it is my opinion you have done good in submitting your technical or/and aesthetical question to RFF. But two points should be taken into account. For aesthetical judgement, most of the prints will manage to pass through somehow the small size RFF is able to offer.
For technical assestment, it is my opinion that RFF size is absolutely unfit. It is not the fault of RFF, RFF acts according to his resources and other factors - good will there is. But you could spare me and everybody else the trip to Canada, by simply posting a big size print to flickr, and then post us the link.
I insist. Provided good scanning was given, show me a tenth of your neg, after scaning at a square meter, and then we may start learning something.
Your scanning and wet processing data will not hurt either.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
R
ruben
Guest
Dear Friend,
Have you been talking in general, I would agree very much with you. No doubt.
But the photog opening this thread specifically said:
"Maybe not quite a religious experience, but I certainly am excited to finish the last 3 rolls. Yesterday I picked up some Rodinal and HC-110 to further my test.
Comments and criticism not only welcome, but encouraged. Tips on using and developing TRI-X are also welcome".
Had he asked for aesthetical commentary I would strongly back his work.
Although in general too, asking for aesthetical commentary via techincal issues is not the taster choice.
Yet it is true, and must be said on his behalf, that our friend capitalK, posted his technical or aesthetics post with several appealing aesthetical images, within the Critique forum, instead of the "film" forum.
Cheers
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator: