TriX 400 in Perceptol

[Ronald M]

When you want to compare the histograms of two different films - an interesting idea - you should have two negatives (one from each film) made with the same camera, the same lens, the same light and the same developer from the same object. It is hard to believe that the histograms you show meet these conditions.

Erik.

Absolutely !!

Decades ago I used Plus X & Microdol 1:3 which gave me me pics that were the best I could do at the time.

Tri X was still full of grain and unacceptable to my standards. I think high speed film and fine grain developer is a total waste. You do not get the speed or fine grain.

Acufine was popular at the time. Sharp & not too fine a neg resulted, but it had micro contrast and detail.

400 speed is best today with TMax and D76 and is far nicer than Tri x is or was. The option is Delta 400 in Xtol or Ilfotec DD X ONLY ONLY ONLY. All these are better than I ever got with Plus X and microdol x.

Tri x in 120 or 4x5 is just beautiful film , but it is different than 35 mm.

 

[sebastel]

Pete,

I am new to film photography. I am lost when you said "Tmax 400 @ 200" ? 1) Is that means you exposed the film ISO400 with ISO200 EV or 2) exposed the ISO400 as box speed and deliberately develop the exposed ISO400 film at ISO200 developing process?

Sorry to side track the thread.

"Tmax 400" is the name of the film.
here, it was exposed like ISO 200, which most probably is the effective sensitivity of the film, given the following development regime & developer.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Even the lenses used affect the grain, however strange it may sound. The Color-Skopar 50mm f/2.5 gives me a finer grain on 400-2TMY then the Summicron-M 50mm f/2 v4. Maybe this is stuff for another thread.

Erik.