View Poll Results: Tmax400 (TMY-2) vs Tri-X Pro (320TXP), which SHEET FILM do you favor more?

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • Tmax400 (TMY-2)

    34 50.00%
  • Tri-X Pro (320TXP)

    34 50.00%
Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 141 to 149 of 149

Thread: Poll: Tmax400 (TMY-2) vs Tri-X Pro (320TXP), which do you favor more?

  1. #141

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,566

    Re: Poll: Tmax400 (TMY-2) vs Tri-X Pro (320TXP), which do you favor more?

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew Wiley View Post
    I can understand trying to kill two birds with one stone: a LOT of images to catalog or post, with a secondary application of selling repro prints. But it would make
    more sense to select out that relatively limited number likely to sell in print and more seriously handle those with a better technique. Collectors don't want copies
    anyway, but the real deal. Otherwise, I call em posters, fancy or not, and not prints.
    Well, until 2007 shots it was optical copies from TXP negatives. This has a value. Since 2007 it was emulated Tri-X grains on digital 1D Mark-III shots, with DXO Film Pack (at least Bachelier mentions it as the good solution, to be used with moderation) then LVT printed on Delta 100, and then printed with enlarger. Not the same... but still printed optically, so you don't see the printer DPIs with a magnifier. Not an argentic digital print, nor a true optical print...

  2. #142

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,566

    Re: Poll: Tmax400 (TMY-2) vs Tri-X Pro (320TXP), which do you favor more?

    Quote Originally Posted by bob carnie View Post
    You are speaking second generation (Bachelier said) right now on this thread or quoting other peoples words. I would really trust my own eyes since I am one of 10 labs doing this and not speaking from second hand knowledge. Kind of like he said - she said.
    Bob
    Bachelier developed the Salgado's negatives, and he explains all that in this interview http://www.fotoclub.org.uy/Articulos...igital-ii.html (Spanish, sorry...)

    He was an insider and I don't think he is misleading... the other sources I have also confirm it all, I've been long pursuing the techinques to obtain the Genesis look, to me it's the Mr Graniere look, it is not my style, but I want to master that in order to achieve my desired style...


    Quote Originally Posted by bob carnie View Post
    Pere
    I know quite a bit about this topic, actually my Lab was the first lab world wide to make fiber base mural prints via a Lambda...
    I know... I'll be asking you some topics in the near future...


    Quote Originally Posted by bob carnie View Post
    I have seen these LVT neg to prints and though good they not as sharp, by a long shot as a direct Lambda print. Remember you are going to a second generation original, and putting it through enlarging optics.
    Bob
    Well... but think that 2007+ pictures had synthetic grain added to 1D Mark III shots by software, with DXO Film Pack. One option was to make a digital file with a pixel for each dot of the Lambda. Then you have to render "fake" TXP grains with dots.

    The other option was to print the synthetic grain on Delta 100 sheets with the Rhino and then enlarging those "fake" grains. You know, more grain is not less resolution... perhaps it was the way the grain it was rendered and how this was related to perceived sharpness, I really don't know for sure the reason, but they selected the internegative way in front of light printing of paper, but I'm suspicious it was because grain rendering... Bachelier said "sharper" but this has to be interpreted. It's an opinion, I can be wrong...




    Quote Originally Posted by bob carnie View Post
    No I do not use FP4 cut then make a contact print, I am working off rolls of Ortho 25 for this purpose .
    Bob
    I understand... it can be worked with red light... cheaper for those big enlargements... and finest 25 grain... the best option...

  3. #143

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    5,308

    Re: Poll: Tmax400 (TMY-2) vs Tri-X Pro (320TXP), which do you favor more?

    Quote Originally Posted by bob carnie View Post
    No they are using a LVT recorder using most likely FP4 on 8 x10 sheet and if smart include a grey scale.
    A lightjet is an image setter that indeed can make fibre prints, but no one to my knowledge is making film off these large image setters other than my shop or shops with a LVT Recorder.
    Two very different animals - the LVT has been around since the early 90's and people are still using them, you can make, silver negs, C41 negs or Transparancies.
    the Lambdas and Lightjets are from about a 4-5 year time difference, and they indeed can make stunning silver gelatin prints, and have the potential for negative.


    We are using a Lambda for making direct silver film which cannot be put in an enlarger, but the good thing is we can make the film to final size for beautiful contact prints.
    We are also making Fiber silver direct prints from any source originals and these prints are extremely sharp and rival enlarger prints.
    Sorry Bob, I was going off what I thought Oren had said.

    Why can't a LightJet / Lambda expose any kind of light sensitive material? Isn't it just basically a projector like any other enlarger device?

    I always assumed it was like that. I haven't a clue about the mechanics nor have I seen one (even though I should have looked at Dwayne's Photo's one when I was there in 2010, but I was too focused on the Kodachrome processing machine).

  4. #144
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    18,338

    Re: Poll: Tmax400 (TMY-2) vs Tri-X Pro (320TXP), which do you favor more?

    Think of the inverse of a drum scanner, with the laser beam going the other direction. They have their idiosyncrasies. There are several of them in use in this very
    neighborhood, and without attempting to make any technical explanation, it's obvious that not every lab knows how to use them correctly.

  5. #145
    bob carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario,
    Posts
    4,939

    Re: Poll: Tmax400 (TMY-2) vs Tri-X Pro (320TXP), which do you favor more?

    Stone -
    A Lambda/Lightjet can indeed expose most kinds of light sensitive material. Yes I compare it to an enlarger all the time, same colour density curve controls, just using a digital file.
    Also the 400 ppi print is so well defined that if you are looking at a print with loop you actually see the grain of the film rather than dots, or pixels. When I saw this feature I immediately went into a life long debt to get one of these machines.

    In 2001 I put Agfa Classic fibre paper in a Durst Lambda and the prints are hanging in my space.
    Ilford Galerie works in a Lambda and it is the paper all of the other labs and myself are using - this paper was introduced in 2006.
    In 2005 three of the owners of Ilford made a surprise visit to my shop , they actually came from UK unannounced because they had just coated a master
    roll of paper to use in a digital device like mine, and they were surprised to here a lab in Toronto was already doing it. At that point they had no real proof that the idea would work, and
    at that point they did not have a machine, now they have a Lightjet and funny enough they are offering these prints online, ??bit of a headscratcher that a manufacturer will compete with their own clients. Not sure how the other labs feel,I know how I feel about it.

    Lucky for me the day that they showed up I was printing Agfa Classic Murals and the beauty part was that I could use safe light with this paper, and when they walked
    into the darkroom I had Dylan Ellis pick up a print in the fix and one of the directors almost passed out in joy, so it seemed, since they had just coated a master roll and did not have
    proof it would work. They sent me a roll and it worked, lots of good Karma from them to me at that time, didn't pan out though for me because if you google digital fibre paper you will see credit
    to Metro Imaging and Ilford 2006 for being the innovators, this kind of pisses me off as I was five years ahead of the loop. But today I am launching it back in batch runs for clients and as long as they make the paper I will buy. I think the Adox paper will work as it is the Agfa Classic emulsion which I know works.

    RC Black and white was going through these machines, but nobody though a fiber paper would work as well the name (FIBRE) kind of scared the owners of Durst Lambda;s as they did not want to screw up their investments.. A lambda is the price of a home in Toronto during this period and the thought was the paper would shred and screw up the system. It does not btw.

    Ilford Warmtone does not work by the way so its a bit of a dilemma as the sensitivity of the emulsions have a very big impact on the lasers and you basically have to test. I will always test
    different papers as our photo-world is shrinking and the need for good material sources is important to have options.


    Film recorders like LVT do make high resolution for enlargers.
    Lambdas like mine do make high resolution for contact.

    Both methods are viable I just happen to have the second version.

    With a negative - the door is open to any process, any paper, silver, pt pt, gum, cyanotype the list is endless and this is where great strides will show themselves over the years.

    Bob

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Sorry Bob, I was going off what I thought Oren had said.

    Why can't a LightJet / Lambda expose any kind of light sensitive material? Isn't it just basically a projector like any other enlarger device?

    I always assumed it was like that. I haven't a clue about the mechanics nor have I seen one (even though I should have looked at Dwayne's Photo's one when I was there in 2010, but I was too focused on the Kodachrome processing machine).

  6. #146
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,385

    Re: Poll: Tmax400 (TMY-2) vs Tri-X Pro (320TXP), which do you favor more?

    While we run off topic, I have used http://www.ilfordlab-us.com/page/91/...om-Digital.htm

    For digital file to analogue using the same exact file with LF Epson printers.

    The Lambda RC print Ilford makes in California is superior to the inkjet, but limited to 10X15" max.

    Bigger is done in Brexitland by Ilford but I have not sailed that ship.

    Good to know Bob is much closer.

    Added, I also have contact printed and enlarged the same negative.
    Last edited by Tin Can; 11-Aug-2016 at 07:56. Reason: added info
    Tin Can

  7. #147
    Tin Can's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,385

    Re: Poll: Tmax400 (TMY-2) vs Tri-X Pro (320TXP), which do you favor more?

    And somebody needs to make a new thread.

    I'm just adding this for Bob Carnie and all others that are following the divergence. I have already gotten PM's about this.

    Ilford price list for Lightjet Digital to analogue up to 50X50 inches in England I assume.

    I consider these prices cheap.
    Tin Can

  8. #148

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    5,308

    Re: Poll: Tmax400 (TMY-2) vs Tri-X Pro (320TXP), which do you favor more?

    Quote Originally Posted by bob carnie View Post
    Stone -
    A Lambda/Lightjet can indeed expose most kinds of light sensitive material. Yes I compare it to an enlarger all the time, same colour density curve controls, just using a digital file.
    Also the 400 ppi print is so well defined that if you are looking at a print with loop you actually see the grain of the film rather than dots, or pixels. When I saw this feature I immediately went into a life long debt to get one of these machines.

    In 2001 I put Agfa Classic fibre paper in a Durst Lambda and the prints are hanging in my space.
    Ilford Galerie works in a Lambda and it is the paper all of the other labs and myself are using - this paper was introduced in 2006.
    In 2005 three of the owners of Ilford made a surprise visit to my shop , they actually came from UK unannounced because they had just coated a master
    roll of paper to use in a digital device like mine, and they were surprised to here a lab in Toronto was already doing it. At that point they had no real proof that the idea would work, and
    at that point they did not have a machine, now they have a Lightjet and funny enough they are offering these prints online, ??bit of a headscratcher that a manufacturer will compete with their own clients. Not sure how the other labs feel,I know how I feel about it.

    Lucky for me the day that they showed up I was printing Agfa Classic Murals and the beauty part was that I could use safe light with this paper, and when they walked
    into the darkroom I had Dylan Ellis pick up a print in the fix and one of the directors almost passed out in joy, so it seemed, since they had just coated a master roll and did not have
    proof it would work. They sent me a roll and it worked, lots of good Karma from them to me at that time, didn't pan out though for me because if you google digital fibre paper you will see credit
    to Metro Imaging and Ilford 2006 for being the innovators, this kind of pisses me off as I was five years ahead of the loop. But today I am launching it back in batch runs for clients and as long as they make the paper I will buy. I think the Adox paper will work as it is the Agfa Classic emulsion which I know works.

    RC Black and white was going through these machines, but nobody though a fiber paper would work as well the name (FIBRE) kind of scared the owners of Durst Lambda;s as they did not want to screw up their investments.. A lambda is the price of a home in Toronto during this period and the thought was the paper would shred and screw up the system. It does not btw.

    Ilford Warmtone does not work by the way so its a bit of a dilemma as the sensitivity of the emulsions have a very big impact on the lasers and you basically have to test. I will always test
    different papers as our photo-world is shrinking and the need for good material sources is important to have options.


    Film recorders like LVT do make high resolution for enlargers.
    Lambdas like mine do make high resolution for contact.

    Both methods are viable I just happen to have the second version.

    With a negative - the door is open to any process, any paper, silver, pt pt, gum, cyanotype the list is endless and this is where great strides will show themselves over the years.

    Bob
    Wow thanks for those details! Awesome read! Sorry about the non-credit that's frustrating. Glad that machine is still working and continuing to be utilized so well.

  9. #149

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,566

    Re: Poll: Tmax400 (TMY-2) vs Tri-X Pro (320TXP), which do you favor more?

    Quote Originally Posted by bob carnie View Post
    Stone -
    A Lambda/Lightjet can indeed expose most kinds of light sensitive material. Yes I compare...

    That reply was for Stone, but I also give thanks to you for that feedback.

    Classic darkroom craft will always have its interest and its own space, but Hybrid process is powerful a lot.

    I also think that it is not fair that a manufacturer competes with their own clients, ...but, well at least they do not offer high quality FB jobs and they mostly are in the low end segment.

    by now we are well out of topic... but sometimes insteresting discusions appear are out of topic.

Similar Threads

  1. Tmax400 in 8x10 E.I?
    By Chris Strobel in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-Aug-2006, 13:42
  2. "New TRI-X" 320TXP
    By jeremy_4146 in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 17-Apr-2004, 06:51

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •