8x10 shooters, can HP5 come close to Tri-X 320?

[Drew Wiley]

The "real reciprocity" of Foma 200 is so abominable that you might want to avoid long exposures with it entirely. You'd have to make a tabulation for every different contrast filter you might use, because the respective filter factors themselves shift at long exposure times, especially if a red filter is used. That is one of the reasons why a simple answer can't be given.

In my experience, Foma 200 really was an outlier in terms of being way more unpredictable than other films at longer exposures, really anything longer than a second. But if you're only talking about 8 to 15 seconds overall, you might be able to juggle that OK.

[Mark J]

Well, that's funny, because I thought I WAS talking about the 'real reciprocity' of Foma 200 !

[Drew Wiley]

It has a bad reputation for long exposures for a reason. You'd actually have to do a lot of work to factor in how just a few common contrast filters affect that. I gave up on Foma 200 for quality control reasons. Otherwise, I might have taken the extra effort trying to figure out how to make it more versatile at longer exposures. But I don't like the idea of cobwebs growing on me like Rip Van Winkle while waiting to close the shutter again.

Specific testing would also have to be done with respect to batch to batch consistency in this respect. That takes a lot of work. I've only done it for TMX100 and FP4 among current films, relative to
long exposure repeatability for color separation neg purposes. Since Foma 200 is known to be quite uncooperative for that kind of purpose, I've haven't had any motive to check yet another potential variable. Of course, that doesn't prohibit a person from guesstimating relative to ordinary black and white shooting needs. Might as well try.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

TXP320 is same or different that Tri-X320? I have not been a fan of D100 always seems flat HC110 or Tmax, weak solution or strong. The TXP320 looked great after I developed it at N-2 (at least in theory). Shadow detail was good and the super bright clouds appear to be manageable now.

[Mark Sampson]

There are two Tri-X films for still cameras. 1) Tri-X Pan Professional, EI320, known as TXP, available in sheets (and formerly in 120 rolls). And 2) Tri-X 400, available in 35mm these days. They are not the same emulsion, and both have changed slightly over the years. There were many variations in the past, 16mm movie stock and Tri-X Ortho 4163 among others, but most are long discontinued.

[Michael R]

TXP320 is same or different that Tri-X320? I have not been a fan of D100 always seems flat HC110 or Tmax, weak solution or strong. The TXP320 looked great after I developed it at N-2 (at least in theory). Shadow detail was good and the super bright clouds appear to be manageable now.

TXP is Tri-X 320, which is a very different emulsion than TX (Tri-X 400), and is fairly unique. It was originally designed primarily for low flare, studio/portraiture work. It has a relatively long toe (ie lower deep shadow contrast) and emphasizes contrast in upper mid-tones and highlights. These characteristics are why some Zone System shooters have traditionally downrated their EI with TXP by more than the usual 2/3 stop, and decreased development - although this also has to do with people pairing the film with HC-110 (which tends to “amplify” the “upswept curve” characteristics of TXP).

A bonus property of TXP is that the base side of the film has some tooth to it (as it was designed for retouching), which can help prevent the dreaded Newton rings from forming if one is using glass negative carriers or contact printing.

D100 has a more standard characteristic curve (virtually identical to T-Max 100) with lower highlight/extreme highlight contrast than TXP, but there shouldn’t be anything inherently “flat” about it. It can do anything any other general purpose medium speed film can do.

[Drew Wiley]

Largely agree, with one exception. D100 distinctly has more native toe than TMY or TMX, but less than TX. To match the practical linearity of TMX100 you need to boost the shadow exposure of Delta 100 a full stop further up the curve. For that reason, I rate it at 50 instead of 100.
The specific pan spectral sensitivity of D100 also differs somewhat from that of TMax films.

I sure wish the old custom of having a retouching tooth on sheet film were still routine today. It made several things easier. I don't know how it would affect current scanning options. Kodak has applied a special scan-friendly surface to their current color as well as black and white sheet films, which slightly lowers the risk of Newton rings too, but is of no value where retouching is concerned.

[Michael R]

Drew, back in the day were there any other films that had a TXP-like retouching surface on the base side?

[Vaughn]

Ilford made FP4 Special Portrait 124 'back in the day'.

[interneg]

back in the day were there any other films that had a TXP-like retouching surface on the base side?

For Kodak, PXT/ 4147, Ektapan/ EKP/ 4162, Super-XX/ 4142 all claimed two-sided retouch tooth - i.e. all the mainstream stuff. Some colour materials too. If they didn't, you could add it at post-production

I recall that FP4+, HP5+ and Delta 100 claimed similar two-surface retouching, but that has probably changed - (not sure, mainly because I've normally just used the emulsion side for anything that needed intervention - as opposed to anything involving pencils etc) if it's still there, it's nowhere near as strong a 'tooth' as the Kodak one that seems to resist Newton Rings. Some Agfa materials seem to have even been listed in versions with and without extra retouching surface from what I have seen. Given the preponderance of plain glass carriers in so many not-that-old 4x5 enlargers, it's probably reasonable to surmise that a a very great deal of the 4x5 used for day-to-day commercial work was more likely than not to have both surfaces retouch capable (which makes sense when you consider the jobs they were being used for).