"The realism of the 1950s." Well, I was there and the 1950s was, for the most part, cloud-coo-coo-land. "Father Knows Best" and "Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet." Not to mention Paul Newman in a short skirt in "The Silver Chalice." (He apologized later for the really terrible acting he did in this major Hollyweird turkey.)
This all just points out that anything do with the arts can be over-intellectualized and over-simplified.
Having said that, the author does make some good points. For instance that quality is more than pixel count and sharp-looking images. I shot film with a Rolleiflex in the 1950s and 1960s and with a Yashicamat in the 1970s. All through those years I made tons of b&w prints from the negs and considered both cameras' lenses to be equally sharp. Recently I have been scanning those negs and soon realized while equally sharp, negs from one camera had much more richness and depth to them than the other. The Rollie negs are better.
Point is -- there is a lot more to photography than counting pixels.
Thanks for bringing this article to our attention. Tri-x has a unique palette, grain, and highlight preservation capability. It came along at the right moment in history, that moment being at least fifty years in duration.
I'm not sure that there are any papers left to bring out the best in Tri-x. I've since switched to Delta films and Ilford paper.
It's the first article I've seen that acknowledges that Tr-X was introduced before 1954, although it was 1938/9 not 1940 and made in the US, Kodak Ltd UK and it's Hungarian subsidiary which later became Forte.