I don't know what the Ilford product is these days, not even sure what
Tri-X is any longer to be truthful, though I have had some limited success
with the one roll of the new emulsion. As I still have a couple of the old
rolls to shoot in the fridge it could be awhile before I buy any more Tri-X.
As for what Tri-X "always wanted to be" . . . I don't think anyone with
experience with the older Tri-X emulsions would care to detract from its
thoroughly-documented unsurpassed (or even closely-approached) qualities.
There are good reasons it became and stayed for many many years the
industry B&W standard film emulsion for so many applications it'd be
impossible to list them all. Was it the only "good" B&W film out there? No.
Was it generally considered to be the "best" all-round performer? Does a
bear dump in the woods?
Getting back to the vibration study: I'll repeat that no matter what happy
qualities the new-and-improved C41 films bring to the table it ought to be
clear that a micro-fine emulsion such as Tech Pan would be the logical
choice for a B&W study of camera shake. Going to a C41 emulsion simply to
save a buck or two pretty much renders the study dubious on its face. I say
if you're going to go to the trouble of doing this kind of research then do
it right in all respects. Otherwise what's the point?
If money is the prime mover in this simply lay it on me and I'll pick up
the entire cost. In fact I'll go one better: send to me all of the Tech Pan
exposed and I'll have it professionally processed on my end at a lab that
always gets it right the first time (has to date at least <g>) and then
scan everything at home myself, providing anyone with interest the
pertinent files upon request. Furthermore, I'll then develop whatever
number of pages on my site (unpublished still, regrettably--perhaps this
will spur me to at last publish the site's front end at least with a link
to this material) that would be required to properly present these findings.
And now I've managed to lose track: is this your project or did Moose dream
it up?
Also, Katie and I are healthy this year (more or less) so how about another
Bay Area get-together of Zuiko types?
Tris
At 08:38 PM 2/1/2004 -0800, you wrote:
Tris wrote:
>I haven't used this Ilford film emulsion you mention. Come to
>think of it I can't recall you talking about it...
>...By the way, my seeming bias against Ilford product dates
>back to my first trial of it when I shot for newspapers
(half->tones on newsprint are hardly definitive tests but
really, the >difference between HP5 and Tri-X was noticeable
even there).
HP5+ developed in Ilfotec DD-X 1:9 is a dead-ringer for Tri-X
these days. In fact, I'd suggest that it is better than Tri-X
because it produces exactly the same thing 1/3 stop faster.
It's good enough for me that I'm totally converting over to it
for my 4x5.
Delta 400 in DD-X is what Tri-X always wanted to be. If it was
available in 4x5, I probably wouldn't shoot anything else in any
format. In my opinion, this is the best B&W film/developer
ever. You can completely alter the look from modern
"plastik-emulsion" to classic "Tri-X/Plus-X" with just a minor
change in exposure/paper grade during printing. Extremely
versitile in so many ways.
Now, about the XP-2. For resolution testing, it's a very nice
choice. There is little reason to criticize it. It lacks a
little bit in the acutance department due to the dye-cloud
structure, but it has a higher resolving ability than any other
400 speed film. Even surpassing 100 speed films. The C-41 based
monochrome films can be a bit mushy in the low values, but
highlights are amazingly sharp.
I haven't been able to do testing yet due to time and money
contraints, but definitely will do some for my own edification.
At 08:38 PM 2/1/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>Tris wrote:
> >I haven't used this Ilford film emulsion you mention. Come to
> >think of it I can't recall you talking about it...
> >...By the way, my seeming bias against Ilford product dates
> >back to my first trial of it when I shot for newspapers
>(half->tones on newsprint are hardly definitive tests but
>really, the >difference between HP5 and Tri-X was noticeable
>even there).
>
>HP5+ developed in Ilfotec DD-X 1:9 is a dead-ringer for Tri-X
>these days. In fact, I'd suggest that it is better than Tri-X
>because it produces exactly the same thing 1/3 stop faster.
>It's good enough for me that I'm totally converting over to it
>for my 4x5.
>
>Delta 400 in DD-X is what Tri-X always wanted to be. If it was
>available in 4x5, I probably wouldn't shoot anything else in any
>format. In my opinion, this is the best B&W film/developer
>ever. You can completely alter the look from modern
>"plastik-emulsion" to classic "Tri-X/Plus-X" with just a minor
>change in exposure/paper grade during printing. Extremely
>versitile in so many ways.
>
>Now, about the XP-2. For resolution testing, it's a very nice
>choice. There is little reason to criticize it. It lacks a
>little bit in the acutance department due to the dye-cloud
>structure, but it has a higher resolving ability than any other
>400 speed film. Even surpassing 100 speed films. The C-41 based
>monochrome films can be a bit mushy in the low values, but
>highlights are amazingly sharp.
>
>I haven't been able to do testing yet due to time and money
>contraints, but definitely will do some for my own edification.
>
>AG
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
>http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
>
>The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
>To contact the list admins:
>mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus List Problem"
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|