At 09:51 AM 2/3/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>Tris wrote:
> >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.
>
>Not denegrading Tri-X. It's just that technology rolled on.
Yes, and more than once for Tri-X itself. A good thing? I'm not sure.
>Tri-X was "state-of-the-art" for many years. It just isn't
>anymore.
Because of changing technology it could no longer be called state-of-the
art for journalistic work--too much swing to digital, though I'd bet it
still owns an overwhelming share of the periodical market that still runs
B&W half-tone art.
>My point is, that Delta 400/DD-X is able to recreate
>the Tri-X look better than the NEW TRI-X is able to do.
That could well be. I haven't tried the Delta film and the new Tri-X
emulsion is up in the air with me as I've just shot that one roll to date.
(Though I do not wholly dislike the results I obtained, which I ran on this
list, and at that under fairly demanding light conditions.)
But to the nub of it: if you want to say that Delta is more like Tri-X than
Tri-X than I put it to you that Delta cannot, in the face of cold logic,
actually "be" Tri-X but rather something else, and by implication something
"better," whatever that might mean.
I mentioned (in another earlier thread, say, a year ago, and at that time
went into some detail) my limited experience with HP5 back in the 70s when
I first got into photojournalism. In a nutshell: HP5's increased contrast
was so pronounced to such a degree that the newspaper I then worked for
went back to Tri-X almost immediately (thus my only brief exposure to the
emulsion). I imagine other newspapers were approached by Ilford (the bulk
film my newspaper used for this trial was gratis from the manufacturer,
Ilford, looking to up its market share, of course) similarly and while I
don't have any hard data to cite _as far as I know_ Tri-x never did lose
its appreciable hold _on that market_. Now I wouldn't be at all surprised
to learn that HP5 was a big hit out on the street at that time where
increased contrast might very well have been treated to a warm reception,
much the same way, I dare say, that photographers (some photographers, I am
not one of them) praise the day that Fuji released Velvia. I do know that
so-called "serious" photographers of B&W studies of this nature or that who
already had experience with Tri-X did not find themselves so moved, at
least not en masse. Of course my sample in this area is small, limited to
the B&W shooters I've run into over the years, many of those admittedly
photojournalists, and strictly over the net for almost the past decade, but
the point is I've never actually met, not one time, one single photographer
who has used Tri-X in any meaningful manner over a period of time in the
professional sense who switched over to HP5 because he thought it "looked
better." I'm confident there are people of this description, somewhere, and
for all I know you might be one of these people, but I haven't met any to
my knowledge. Yet.
Are you one of these people?
Finally, to say "technology has moved on" with regard to the Tri-X look and
"feel" strikes me as not a little bit arbitrary, somewhat self-serving and
otherwise wholly confuses the point of what documentary art means to
accomplish. The countless examples of Tri-X at work in any of the fields
where it so obviously excelled (we've touched on photojournalism, another
ready example would be portrait art, architectural studies qualify, etc.)
will, I dare say, always be with us to admire and to enjoy, no matter how
far away from that look and "feel" Kodak decides to steer the Tri-X badge.
In _that_ sense (an established portfolio of recognized work) I put it to
you that the Tri-X legend has earned immortality and will likely remain an
emulsion other films (and their users) wish to compare themselves with, by
and to.
It'd be a little bit like me proclaiming that my Jeep Overland is a
"better" vehicle than the venerable British Leyland Land-Rover. Well, in
truth my Jeep _is_ better in many respects and there's no denying that
automobile "technology has moved on" over the past 50 years. But you know
what? I only own the Jeep because it was available. I still _want_ and
_crave for_ an old Land-Rover Santana.
>However, Delta 400 doesn't stop there. It gives you the
>flexibility to achieve another half zone on either end of
>latitude. You can either use this latitude which gives you a
>modern T-grain look, or hack it off and get the Tri-X look.
Again, by so feverishly trying to compare favorably the new Ilford offering
with the old Tri-X you only make my case. <g>
As for the comparison with the T-grain stuff: I'm not terribly impressed
with the Kodak TMAX offerings. (The company used to run a rather pathetic
image of an apple in its film section to demonstrate this emulsion's
"look"--do you know if they still do?) The 100 film simply can't hold
highlights worth a damn and its grain structure is blah for my money. I see
a certain use for the 3200 (so called) emulsion, especially if you _do not_
give it enough light, as the grain effects in this case are somewhat
stunning to my eye, perhaps not to yours. (I see it as a good experimental
film for existing-light work outdoors on rainy/foggy nights in London, just
for example. I'll post a sample of this effect if you ask.)
>Skip Williams has probably done the finest job, I've seen, of
>getting the Tri-X look out of Delta 400.
Once again, just making the old Tri-X case. And Skip's hardly the first.
The thing is one would only want to make these comparisons with a "classic"
film such as Tri-X. Ironically, the only other emulsion I can think of
which is accorded this respect is Kodak's own Kodachrome (the older
discontinued slow emulsion, of course, and the 64 variety which is still
with us). Happens all the time. And you know what? These wannabe brands
still haven't a clue . . . or a prayer. <g>
That's not to say there are no other excellent reversals out there to use.
There certainly are. But they do it differently, and I'll bet you bottom
dollar you've never heard a Kodachrome user say, "Gee, they've managed to
pump this little girl up to where she looks even sweeter than Velvia!"
>I could go on with several other areas where I feel that Delta
>400/DD-X is superior, but I won't. I wouldn't expect ANYBODY to
>take my word for it. If you do get around to trying it, you'll
>want it processed in spiral tank with DD-X, not replenished DD
>or any other developer. Only change to something else if you've
>got specific reasons to. It is a matched technology.
There's truth in that. I ought to give Delta a try and perhaps I will. I
enjoy playing around with new looks.
Haven't done a bit of wet work for 25 years, though. Perhaps when Katie and
I retire and find a house with a full basement I'll be able to set up a
modest darkroom where I could fool around with chemicals again. Time will tell.
> >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 partially agree with this assessment. We're testing
>vibrations, not lenses. I believe that the resolution fall-off
>with vibration occurs at a level not requiring tech pan (which I
>acknowledge is an incredible film). If you need greater
>resolving ability than XP-2, then we've exceeded the scope of
>the test in the first place.
Whatever the comparative results might turn out to be the resolving power
of Tech Pan will surely outstrip that of any C41 emulsion, and that can
only be a (theoretically) good not bad deal. Scanned at 4000 dpi who's to
say what the final images will show? Afterall, we haven't conducted the
test yet!
I might agree that for purposes of web display the difference in emulsions
used could turn out to be moot, but that's another story altogether and
quite possibly _not_ the case if the results are scanned and displayed
correctly.
>If no vibration induced resolution
>fall-off is visible in an XP-2 negative it will be a non-issue
>with ANY E-6 or C-41 emulsion. Vibration will ALWAYS be
>present, but I'm interested in establishing a "threshold" that
>filters out the variations caused by whether or not the stereo
>was playing in the background. Anything below that "threshold"
>is too variable to be usable.
I'm not awful worried about stereos in the background. Just real-world
camera-shake concerns on top of various off-the-shelf tripod supports will
do. <g>
By the way, I forget, but did the study want to compare camera-support
combinations (tripods and heads) or just tripods?
>Tech pan, would be the "ideal" test film. Maybe. You'd
>probably get more harmonics from lunar phases than you would
>from the tripod. :-)
Well, the thing is the study could well conclude that the difference in
camera shake between using this support and that are 1) measurable but 2)
to such a small degree that a micro-fine grain structure would be required
to resolve this difference to the naked eye. If that _were_ the case then
it would be foolish to go into the work using an inferior test medium, no?
But again, if cost (or time) is an object just put it on me. I'm all for
the advancement of "Oly science." <g>
Tris
P.S. When did you get into Ilford products, AG?
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"
|