Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,908   Posts: 1,521,514   Online: 908
      
Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 123

Thread: Tri-X vs. T-Max

  1. #61
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,164
    Images
    289

    Tri-X vs. T-Max

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Lime View Post
    >Thomas Bertilsson:
    > Which is which, Clive?



    From a highly compressed low resolution jpeg?

    The difference between the two isn't day and night, but it's there and noticeable at higher resolutions.
    That said it's not a matter of one being better than the other. It's a matter of personal taste.
    If it's a personal choice, there clearly must be some way of telling them apart other than pixel peeping or 30x40" prints. If there is no immediate difference, then why even bother distinguishing between them?

    Portraits of woman is 120 TMY-2, girl is 35mm TMY, man is 120 Delta 400 (cropped 645), and boy is 120 Tri-X 400.
    The pictures are all scans of prints on Ilford MGIV fiber, and they are at max quality level, not highly compressed.
    Looking at the prints, at 11x14 size I can't tell them apart based on grain.
    Last edited by Thomas Bertilsson; 12-18-2012 at 10:51 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  2. #62
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,767
    I haven't compared them at the same print size from the same negative size since TMY came out. At that time I could certainly tell them apart in 35mm -> 8x10 prints. I know Tri-X has changed and is finer grained. If it's really that close now, use whichever you like (which, really, is what we all do anyway.)

    Any differences in tonality and so forth would be more than swamped by differences in individual photos so the only real way to compare that would be to shoot the same subject under the same light.

  3. #63
    Philippe-Georges's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Flanders Fields
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by Halka View Post
    By the way, how does the production still go on with Kodak's current problems? I hope they are not just emptying the stores...
    This is what is worrying me too! We are bathing in the opulence of having two B&W emulsions, made by a manufacturer who's struggling to survive, and discussing the differences of their similarities (nothing wrong with that), but will it last?

    I really do hope so, it took me years to find an alternative for the regretted AGFAPAN 400, and finally went with Tri-X...
    "...If you can not stand the rustle of the leafs, then do not go in to the woods..."
    (freely translated quote by Guido Gezelle)

    PS: English is only my third language, please do forgive me my sloppy grammar...

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    650
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by lxdude View Post
    What defines "natural" in film manufacturing? Strange word to use.
    Silver chloride grains prefer to form regular cubes, bounded by six identical crystal faces.
    Tabular grains are bounded by their faces in silver chloride emulsions but revert to non-tabular forms unless morphologically stabilized.
    T grains parallel twin plane formation pose specific limitations, hue shifts etc. and those are trickier to workaround without sacrifice.

  5. #65
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,674
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    I don't like TMX, but love TMY. I also like FP4+ and Tri-X. I don't think it's tabular grain vs cubic grain. I think it's just one film formulation vs another. And even then the choice of developer for each film can drastically change how things look. To me it's all about the tonality and not the grain (since most of my prints are grainless at the size I make them).

  6. #66
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    If it's a personal choice, there clearly must be some way of telling them apart other than pixel peeping or 30x40" prints. If there is no immediate difference, then why even bother distinguishing between them?

    Portraits of woman is 120 TMY-2, girl is 35mm TMY, man is 120 Delta 400 (cropped 645), and boy is 120 Tri-X 400.
    The pictures are all scans of prints on Ilford MGIV fiber, and they are at max quality level, not highly compressed.
    Looking at the prints, at 11x14 size I can't tell them apart based on grain.
    So much for my guess work..............

  7. #67
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,848
    Silver chloride grains prefer to form regular cubes, bounded by six identical crystal faces.
    You shouldn't anthropomorphize inanimate materials. They hate that.
    f/22 and be there.

  8. #68
    Rafal Lukawiecki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Co. Wicklow, Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Portraits of woman is 120 TMY-2, girl is 35mm TMY, man is 120 Delta 400 (cropped 645), and boy is 120 Tri-X 400.
    That was enjoyable, thanks for posting the quiz, Thomas. I had the girl and the boy as Tri-X, so not quite right, either, though 35mm amongst MF was quite a trick.

    In my prints, I can see the difference, in 4x5, especially between the older TMX, and TXT/320TXP, but only in smooth areas such as a plain sky. The grain appearance of TMX seems more geometrical when I peeping at a 12x16 print, while that of TXP seems more random. Having said that, I do not know if this is due to film, or, probably more likely, the way I have been processing it at the time. Bear in mind that I really only know HP5+ in LF, but I have been looking again at 320TXP recently. If Kodak film business remains, I might have a go at TMY some time. I have no idea why, I know it should be better to stick with one film, one dev, one xyz...
    Rafal Lukawiecki
    See rafal.net | Read rafal.net/articles

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    650
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    You shouldn't anthropomorphize inanimate materials. They hate that.
    I am ashamed

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,486
    Someone in addition to Anchell seems to be smoking something and blowing out the smoke. One
    should be able to detect the differences between these respective films in a 5x7 print. That's almost
    a 5x enlargement from 35mm. I can even see the difference between TMY and TMX at that magnification. Not only the differences in grain but in curve shape (esp at the toe) are significant
    and affect not only real-world metering, but also the nature of shadow separation and micro-contrast above. Magnificent tonality can be achieved with any of them, once you understand them.
    But that doesn't make them interchangable. Each has its distinct suite of characteristics, which
    one can then bend by dev choice, exposure strategy, etc.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin