Is TRIX320 98% better than Ilford HP5 Plus ??

[ndwgolf]

Question;
I just orderer 30 sheets of TRIX320 from B&H for $240 without shipping. I now see that I could have gotten 50 sheets of Ilford HP5+ for less than that........Is TRIX that much better??

Neil

[locutus]

Not to me

[David Karp]

I love HP5+. It's not a duplicate of Tri-X. You would have to try it out.

[Ken Lee]

Is TRIX that much better??

Respectfully, if you can provide a definition of better, you'll be able to answer your own question :)

A long time Kodak film user, I now use Ilford. It's good enough for my purposes and I appreciate the difference in price.

[Luis-F-S]

I've used Tri-X for some 30 odd years. Lately, I've been shooting HP5 largely due to availability and cost. Don't have a real good feel for it yet!

[dasBlute]

I use both, but I love TXP.

[Mark Sampson]

I worked as an industrial/technical photographer for Eastman Kodak (and its successor ITT Space Systems) for 25 years. While I used many Kodak films during that time, my choice for my personal LF work was always Tri-X Pan Professional 4164. It worked quite well for me. Several years ago I decided to try Ilford FP4+. The speed difference doesn't matter to me, and I really like the quality of the prints I'm making now. I was loyal to my home town and my employer from 1982-2013, but that's long enough. Tri-X is a fine film; since you've ordered it, use it and stick with it for at least a year. That way you'll understand how it works. Then if you can imagine an improvement, try a different film and use that for a year. There ain't no 'magic bullet'!

[Jac@stafford.net]

No!

[Peter Lewin]

I've been using HP5+ in all formats (35mm through 4x5) for a very long time (starting without the "+") and it is my favorite. It also seems appropriate to support Ilford, since they are now the major supporter of black and white photography, via film, papers, and chemistry.

[Luis-F-S]

Respectfully, if you can provide a definition of better, you'll be able to answer your own question :)

Not a clue!

[Jim Andrada]

I still love it - and I shoot so little 8 x 10 these days that a couple of hundred $$$ will take care of me for a year or two. But I like FP4+ a lot too!!! And 8 x 10 Acros - I'm ordering a few boxes from Yodobashi Camera tonight since a friend is coming over next week and will hand carry it for me.

[Alan Gales]

They each have a different look. Some prefer one and some prefer the other. I wouldn't say one is better. Try both out and find out for yourself.

I like Tri-X but that is my preference.

[vdonovan]

I really love TXP320, I've shot it for years, but I am moving to HP5. It's cheaper, and I like having the same emulsion in 35mm, 120, 4x5 and 8x10. It will take me a while to get a tonal curve that I like, but I don't mind experimenting.

[Peter De Smidt]

Both are very good films. HP5+ is limited to about +2 development, and it has larger grain, but for most of our purposes, it works just fine.

[axs810]

I've used both for my large format work and as much as I want to like HP5+ I would still rather pay more for Kodak Tri-X 320. I'm sure if I spent more time experimenting with developing Ilford films in various developers/times my opinion would change but without changing my shooting/dev methods for both films I prefer Kodak Tri-X 320 hands down.

The best way I can explain why I prefer Kodak is because of the tonality of the darkest shadow areas and the ease of pulling development when overexposing and underdeveloping. Whenever I shoot Ilford films I always find that the darkest areas containing shadow detail (before going straight black) seem to just have more contrast than Tri-X. Whenever I print or scan Tri-X I can get all the shadow detail I want easily and adjust contrast to my liking after. With Ilford films I find the blacks just kind of go off and it's sometimes difficult to get the smallest amount of shadow detail back without compromising the richness in the blacks. If you want to do a general search just to see this visually google both films and add "flickr" at the end and compare the "general" results.

I'm not trying to say HP5+ isn't any good I just prefer the dynamic range more with the Kodak films because I've used it a lot more and understand how it will react in certain situations before I even develop the film. I'm sure if I spent more time with Ilford films I would change my opinion but for now I'll stick with shooting Kodak as long as it's available. Sure it's more expensive but I think we go into that when we dive into LF photography lol.


Oh and for the times where I want some beautiful contrast that's almost unique I'll shoot Fujifilm Acros. The bergger pancro 400 is pretty nice too especially for the price but I still need practice with that film (many places are out of stock at the moment) I'm finding with the pancro 400 it's a nice film to scan but I'm a little hesitant on how well I'll be able to print with them.



BTW, this is just my opinion. To really make a decision on which one is better (for you) you really need to do various tests for yourself in many different situations. Everyone has a different style...just find yours and stick with it

[LabRat]

One thing to check for is if you commonly push film, TX tends to have the shorter dev time for every (+) stop push, but some higher EI pushes on other films take much longer, so check the posted times for the others...

Besides speed for the smaller format TX users, a big plus for users was that it tended to have a slight bump in mid-tone density around Zone 7, for faces and flesh, it tended to highlight a face in a scene, so for press and people photography, people would stand out better...

Steve K

[Pere Casals]

Question;
I just orderer 30 sheets of TRIX320 from B&H for $240 without shipping. I now see that I could have gotten 50 sheets of Ilford HP5+ for less than that........Is TRIX that much better??

Neil

Absolutely no, same general quality, "H" "P" it originated as Hypersensitive Panchromatic plates in 1931, so also HP5+ commes from a long tradition, as TX/TXP do.


Technical differences:

Most important is grain structure, but this is not seen with LF, and impossible to see in 8x10. This is very important for 35mm, and important for

MF. Now TXP for MF is dicontinued, but TX is close. TX has more grain in the dark greys and HP5+ has more grain in the mid greys.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28286548926/in/dateposted-public/

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8561/28286548926_5aa091394b_b.jpg



For the rest of technical differences one can perfectly match one look to the other, and when I say perfectly I mean that this only depends on photographer' skills to obtain what he wants from a film.

Let's see how:

To match Shadow/Highligt detail:

See how toe/shoulder are used from film and paper curves, if scannig+PS it's just direct. Also one can add some Benzotriazole to the developer to act as a toe cutter to match toes...


Tonality:

TXP is not completely linear, TMX linearity lovers would say this is a defect, it can enlight white caucasian faces, but same effect can be obtained with filtering or illumination, TXP (some say) was more studio intended than TX (for MF and LF) when both were made in both formats, this translates to TXP sheets. TXP needs to be more accurately metered (easy in the studio), because if not that ZVII slight bump may be counterproductive.


The other thing is slightly different spectral response, both are panchromatic, but right colors of the filters will make match the translation from color to BW.


My conclusion:

TX (TPX brother) is very different from HP5+ in MF and 35mm because grain structure (both as good), but for LF there is no grain, so one can do what he wants with both, just a calibration/tunning matter.

IMHO those how say that they obtain a particular LF look with one of the films would also obtain the same with the other film, if making the necessary effort for process adjustment, to the point a double blind test would not discern it, I repeat, IMHO. Also I'm pretty sure the grain structure foodprint is very different for MF/35mm formats.


Price:

You mentioned the price difference of sheets. I use some TX (close to TXP) in MF because price is near the same than HP5+.

I'm not to speak again about that (also I feel I'm not allowed :) ) as I mounted some quarrels about it aganist reputed members. This was a heated debate I'm not proud of.

Anyway you can review that film pricing threads.


Regards.

[Pere Casals]

Both are very good films. HP5+ is limited to about +2 development, and it has larger grain, but for most of our purposes, it works just fine.

Hello Peter,

My impression is that, rather than larger grain, it is about grain structure. I'd say that TXP has more grain in the darks, and HP5 has more in the middles. Perhaps having more grain in the middles makes grain more evident...

But this is with 120 MF, grain is way irrelevant in 8x10...

Regards.

[LabRat]

I had found that HP5 & TX (+P) to be different films, with different "looks"... TX was helpful in the studio shooting a new product where it would render bright/new looking, due to the mid-tone "bump", and photographing a darker/flatter scenic under flatter light to be very helpful to brighten up dark/dank conditions, but other films would have a more "natural" looking curve... But the TX would almost look overexposed, even at normal exposure in the mid-tones under very bright conditions (like the beach, etc)... But great under darker overcast, dark fog, etc, to brighten things up, or shooting available light of people, so the faces pop out (even in print form)... Or with flash at events of celebs to REALLY make them stand out... (But could be tough if lighter and darker skinned faces were in the pix, and getting detail on someone's black tux, too...) Tended to look kinda contrasty, even at normal exposure...

But out here in the bright Cali sun, it could be a bit much, as the scale could bunch up when bright outside... (For awhile, fashion & headshot photographers would use it to "scrub" down actor's or model's facial features on headshots, etc to clean up skin so much, that noses would disappear, and all you could see was two little nostril holes below where the nose was supposed to be!!!) Could look "soot & chalky" with a strong development, and hard to tame while printing... (Esp with warm, over-replenished, commercial lab processing...) Lotsa burning in is required!!!

So the conditions one shoots under and taste will help decide which film is for you... Test and decide...

Steve K

[Pere Casals]

I had found that HP5 & TX (+P) to be different films, with different "looks"...

Hello Steve,

I'm pretty sure that shooting 2 films side by side, and later making an "standard" development as datasheet says will render an slightly different look.

But then we have scientific tools, at the end we are recording light levels.

First, spectral response charts we'll give us a "filter" that we'll make match the response, if practice filtering we'll give much more adjustment room than the film nature difference is.

Second, a sensiometric curve explains very well how a film works. From each ammount of light is related with a density, so if one understands what BTZS says one can get get what he wants about tonality, with film or with paper.

IMHO if one just scans+ps+lambda it is way straight obtaining what he wants. With wet printing sometimes a master prointer has to be there, independently from film.

Regards

[ben_hutcherson]

My experience with TXP is limited to a few(in date) 4x5 sheets and a few expired 220 rolls. It is a different film from TX, but you can also see that in many ways they are similar. The amount of TX I've shot could be measured in miles-it's absolutely one of my favorite film.

I have not shot that much HP5+, but I find it hard to get the same "look" from it as I can get from TX and TXP(BTW, although I can see the difference in TXP, it still behaves a lot like the TX I know well). I've always felt like I get more contrast and not as much mid-range detail, but then it may be a case of not knowing the film(or just comparing it against the look I'm familiar with).

I support Ilford and shoot a lot of FP4+(I use it in particular for LF architecture), but HP5+ is a film that really doesn't have a home in my freezer.

One thing to consider is that-AFAIK-TXP is the only film still in production with a base that is designed to be hand-retouched. Granted that's a dying art and something I've never done, although I'd like to give it a shot. TXP lets you do that, and 8x10 gives you a whole lot of working area.

[interneg]

TXP and HP5 are generally closer to each other than TX and HP5. Delta 400 is closer curve-wise to TX. HP5 has a rather softer toe than TXP. This is pretty obvious from the available datasheets - & even more so if you've actually shot & processed the films side by side.

I'd argue that HP5 probably has the best all round tonality, if you don't mind the grain coming in a bit earlier. TXP is the successor to 'Portrait Pan' & similar films of the past - intended for softer lighting conditions & an emphasis on highlight behaviour. Shooting in soft light & pushing your CI's up into the 0.7s might start to send HP5 a bit more in a classic TXP-ish direction. If you like Paul Strand or Richard Avedon, TXP should be your choice, no questions.

As for notions that you can process one film digitally to look like another, that's not going to happen unless you have an absolutely linear input file with no inherent curve - ie a file off a digital sensor & even then, it's only a (often profoundly unconvincing) simulation that's really only a vague transliteration of curve & colour sensitivity into a PS/LR 'preset' larded with fake 'grain'. It's quite easy to make excellent BW conversions once you get what sort of spectral sensitivities you want to emphasise, but that's not really relevant to this discussion.

Try them both & use the one you like, not whichever is the cheapest at a specific point in time - you'll make better work that way.

[Pere Casals]

As for notions that you can process one film digitally to look like another, that's not going to happen unless you have an absolutely linear input file with no inherent curve

Not necessary...

Sensitometric curves are monotonically increasing functions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonic_function), so there is an straight transfer funtion. It can be done from calibration calculations, or simply by eye with good results.

It is true that the part of the tonality related to the spectral response has to be matched at the taking moment... when one has gray levels it happnes that sprectral information is lost.

[axs810]

[COLOR="#0000FF"][B]Technical differences:

Most important is grain structure, but this is not seen with LF, and impossible to see in 8x10. This is very important for 35mm, and important for

MF. Now TXP for MF is dicontinued, but TX is close. TX has more grain in the dark greys and HP5+ has more grain in the mid greys.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28286548926/in/dateposted-public/

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8561/28286548926_5aa091394b_b.jpg



For the rest of technical differences one can perfectly match one look to the other, and when I say perfectly I mean that this only depends on photographer' skills to obtain what he wants from a film.




When you view the image on flickr the HP5+'s blacks look similar to a matte quality vs tri-x. That's kind of what I was trying to mention in my post earlier...to get close to the same amount of detail from the shadows you kind of have to "lift" the blacks sometimes.

[Pere Casals]

When you view the image on flickr the HP5+'s blacks look similar to a matte quality vs tri-x. That's kind of what I was trying to mention in my post earlier...to get close to the same amount of detail from the shadows you kind of have to "lift" the blacks sometimes.


TX and TXP have different toes...

But the toes also can be worked when printing... or mid tones expanded... or highlights burnt...

At the end ISO specifies very vell speed, so graphs remove all discussion.

What is less debated it's the spectral response difference. A manufacturer even can add color dyes to the emulsion, not for sensitization, but to act as a bare color filter. I guess that all the pink stuff that TMX exudes may also work as a pinky filter.


Spectral response in datasheets cannot be compared from one manufacturer to another, the Kodak one is in ergs, others come from contact copy tests. But the filtering a photographer may use it has much more effect than the film spectral nature. Still films are to work different if no filtering is used.

So, I'd say that filtering has a key role, ...and toe, shoulder, midtone expansion it's about the right process to obtain what we want from an image by using a film.

The TMX concept is let's make capture linear, and do what you want in the post. This is a proffessional thinking. An amateur may prefer having a given footprint coming from a plain process... IMHO

[axs810]

Can you provide literature showing more information about these color dyes added to the b/w film emulsion? If not it sounds like you're saying the sensitizing dyes and anti-halation dyes are affecting the spectral response of silver halides? How is the spectral response differing if the anti-halation layers are behind the film base? Perhaps I'm not understanding where the filtering takes place here. Sounds like you are talking about color sensitizers / dye couplers in color film.


I'm not sure why you brought up TMX but you understand that's a tabular grain film correct? Talking about the dye components in T-grain films are different than that of a cubic grain film.


http://www.ohio.edu/people/schneidw/darkroom/images/film_xc_txt.jpg



I understand you can do what you want in post (that's a given) I just find it a bit odd when people post comparison photos of two films and don't scan them as accurately as possible and continue to try to prove their point.

[koraks]

As far as I know, dyes in b&w films are used for two purposes: to make the emulsion orthochromatic (one dye) or panchromatic (add another dye), and for antihalation.
The image you included shows one type of antihalation, at the back of the film base. However, antihalation dyes are often present between the film base and the emulsion, or perhaps even as an integral part of the emulsion itself (I'm not entirely sure about the latter). As far as I know, dyes are not used as a 'passive' color filter in b&w films to manipulate spectral response; to the best of my knowledge, dyes are only adhered to the silver grains to expand their sensitivity beyond uv/blue. I'd happily stand corrected on this, though.

[interneg]

Can you provide literature showing more information about these color dyes added to the b/w film emulsion? If not it sounds like you're saying the sensitizing dyes and anti-halation dyes are affecting the spectral response of silver halides? How is the spectral response differing if the anti-halation layers are behind the film base? Perhaps I'm not understanding where the filtering takes place here. Sounds like you are talking about color sensitizers / dye couplers in color film.

I think he's horrifically mangling what acutance dyes do with regards to tackling internal reflections between emulsion layers, but beyond that, no idea.

And as for that supposed comparison of films, there's a 1-2 generation gap between the purported TX sample & the HP5. And it's doubly irrelevant because it's TX, not TXP...

[Pere Casals]

Can you provide literature showing more information about these color dyes added to the b/w film emulsion?


As far as I know, dyes are not used as a 'passive' color filter in b&w films to manipulate spectral response;



"This is because I made the emulsion partially self-screening. (It has an incorporated filtering dye.) I added yellow dye with the finals to the emulsion before coating. It turns out the Yellow #5, the standard yellow food dye, is tartrazine, an excellent yellow filter.! "

http://www.thelightfarm.com/cgi-bin/htmltutgen.py?content=02Sep2013


I think he's horrifically mangling what acutance dyes do with regards to tackling internal reflections between emulsion layers, but beyond that, no idea.

And as for that supposed comparison of films, there's a 1-2 generation gap between the purported TX sample & the HP5. And it's doubly irrelevant because it's TX, not TXP...



In general manufacturers use a dye sensitization mix to obtain a desired spectral response.

Dye sensitization modifies the spectral response but also emulsion speed. At the end it happens that you may have a dye sensitization mix that's very good for speed or because lower LIRF but it has not an suitable spectral response, one way to solve this is incorporating non sensitizing dyes in the emulsion, as Ms Ross tells for DIY emulsion.

One may call that Self-Screening emulsion.

Industry does not disclose much of their secrets, but we have some clues. Sexton said TMXY was designed to need less a yellow filter, then we have pink dye in it, enough to paint a Ferrari, when the sensitizing dyes are added in extreme low proportion.

Also we have the TMX film is near opaque to UV, a nightmare for some alternative process, probably this is not by chance, perhaps the antihalation layer was reflecting UV and they used an UV absorving base, just a guess. So absorving light can play different roles...

What is very clear to me (I'm a DIY emulsion learner/beginner...) is that using color (non sensitizing) dyes is a useful resource to get a desired spectral response from an emulsion. But I don't know at all what emulsions are partial or completely self-screening.

Then we also have supercoats... if I was an emulsion designer I would use an screening supercoat that washes out with developer... or dye color that is destroyed with high alkaline pH from developer...

At this point IMHO we should ask Ron... I don't know more.

What is also clear is that color film makes extensive usage of screening inside emulsion, a side appraisement... And also color film has their original dyes destroyed in the processing... so that's a known technology.

[koraks]

"This is because I made the emulsion partially self-screening. (It has an incorporated filtering dye.) I added yellow dye with the finals to the emulsion before coating. It turns out the Yellow #5, the standard yellow food dye, is tartrazine, an excellent yellow filter.! "

http://www.thelightfarm.com/cgi-bin/htmltutgen.py?content=02Sep2013
Sounds interesting. Is there any indication that this also happens with commercial films? I can imagine it's not a very good solution in terms of photon efficiency.


Dye sensitization modifies the spectral response but also emulsion speed. At the end it happens that you may have a dye sensitization mix that's very good for speed or because lower LIRF but it has not an suitable spectral response, one way to solve this is incorporating non sensitizing dyes in the emulsion, as Ms Ross tells for DIY emulsion.
If you read the patents, you'll arrive at the conclusion that LIRF is mostly prevented by the addition of minute amounts of iridium.


Industry does not disclose much of their secrets, but we have some clues. Sexton said TMXY was designed to need less a yellow filter, then we have pink dye in it, enough to paint a Ferrari, when the sensitizing dyes are added in extreme low proportion.
I'm not convinced the purple dye in TMX and TMY has the purpose of a spectral filter, as it's well-documented that this is in fact an antihalation dye. Filtration would be much more efficient by changing the ratio of grains sensitized in different ways (non-dye sensitized, ortho and pan sensitized), instead of throwing away light reaching the film by filtering it out.


Also we have the TMX film is near opaque to UV, a nightmare for some alternative process, probably this is not by chance, perhaps the antihalation layer was reflecting UV and they used an UV absorving base, just a guess. So absorving light can play different roles...
My guess is that the UV blocking base helps to prevent scatter, which tends to occur more as the wavelength is lower, as I understand (correct me if I'm wrong). A UV blocking base would prevent scatter against the backside of the film and the pressure plate/film holder, but it would obviously not play a role in preventing scatter thrown about by an antihalation dye that sits in a layer of the emulsion that lies directly on the film (or rather, the subbing). Given the difficulty of washing out the pink dye in TMX, I would say that the antihalation dye is in the lower layers of the emulsion, not on the back of the film, where it would be easily accessible for the processing solutions. Also note that TMX does not have a subbing at the backside (as most films don't), so getting an antihalation dye to adhere there would be quite hard in the first place, and in addition an antihalation dye at the backside of the film would increase the risk of scratching, necessitating a supercoat or some other form of protection, making the film yet more complex to manufacture. Hence, I find your guess that the UV blocking base has anything to do with the antihalation dyes that are used a bit far-fetched.

[Pere Casals]

Sounds interesting. Is there any indication that this also happens with commercial films? I can imagine it's not a very good solution in terms of photon efficiency.


Commercial emulsions are industrial secrets, even Mowrey says sometimes he is not allowed to speak about something because non disclorure agreements.

I'm learning... I've been reading some 150h about emulsions (good before bed :)), there is a lot of antique free literature. 1941 "Photographic Emulsion Technique" (Thorne Baker) speaks about Self-Screening emulsion, Denise use a well known term, not "invented" at all.

Fomapan and TMXY have large, extensive (Blue, pink) dyes inside that cannot be well related to sensitization, until I know about the dye sensitization formulation. So single possibility I see (and I'm not Ron...) is self-screening, at least in part. This is my guess from what I know.

About quantum efficiency... I can't tell, this is complicate terrain to me, but sometimes dyes have some positive interactions. We know that today's BW emulsions use high performance dyes that were discovered or developed for color film, money was there, as sells were amazingly big money.




Sounds interesting. Is there any indication that this also happens with commercial films?
If you read the patents, you'll arrive at the conclusion that LIRF is mostly prevented by the addition of minute amounts of iridium.

I've been reading about hypersensitization. Apart from backing for speed, LIRF was removed (by astronomers) from some films (tech pan) by removing free O2 gas with vaccum, also by replacing that air in the emulsion by Forming gas, and using a diluted ammonia bath. All of this for the sake of an electron eager environement, so a doping agent makes the same, I guess this is the Iridium role. Still, I repeat, I'm learning, and this is one of the most complicated things of Acros.




I'm not convinced the purple dye in TMX and TMY has the purpose of a spectral filter, as it's well-documented that this is in fact an antihalation dye. Filtration would be much more efficient by changing the ratio of grains sensitized in different ways (non-dye sensitized, ortho and pan sensitized), instead of throwing away light reaching the film by filtering it out.


The pinky stuff is a big mess, it does not make sense that the anti-halation layer crucifies photographers in that way, with those extended fixing or washing times. Also it does not make much sense as a sensitizing dye, because the ammounts used for sensitization, nobody said what chemical is (until I know)...

The first layer (from the base) is small cubic grains of very low speed, responsible for linearity where a shoulder should be, the spectrally equilibrated emulsion should be the T-grain layer, the outer one.

Of course they can also equilibrate the emulsion by mixing two T emulsions with different spectral response.

But after sensitization is made you can wash out the dye and the sensitization remains, because the dye molleculas that are tied to grains will remain there, so Kodak could remove the pinky stuff if it was for sensitization only, I ask myself.


If the pinky stuff is in the T-grain layer then it will also work as an screen, I repeat, put all that dye that's in the water in the thin emulsion... you have a Ferrari there.

I don't know if the pinky stuff is in the T-grain layer or not, but to me that mess is not justified if it has no screening role. This is my guess, after reading controversial information, there is no official information, or stuff analysis...

Somebody knows what exact chemical is it?









My guess is that the UV blocking base helps to prevent scatter, which tends to occur more as the wavelength is lower, as I understand (correct me if I'm wrong). A UV blocking base would prevent scatter against the backside of the film and the pressure plate/film holder, but it would obviously not play a role in preventing scatter thrown about by an antihalation dye that sits in a layer of the emulsion that lies directly on the film (or rather, the subbing). Given the difficulty of washing out the pink dye in TMX, I would say that the antihalation dye is in the lower layers of the emulsion, not on the back of the film, where it would be easily accessible for the processing solutions. Also note that TMX does not have a subbing at the backside (as most films don't), so getting an antihalation dye to adhere there would be quite hard in the first place, and in addition an antihalation dye at the backside of the film would increase the risk of scratching, necessitating a supercoat or some other form of protection, making the film yet more complex to manufacture. Hence, I find your guess that the UV blocking base has anything to do with the antihalation dyes that are used a bit far-fetched.


If the (near opaque) antihalation layer was between emulsion and base it would make no sense the UV absorving base. Some "micro-films" like Adox CMS 20 has the anti-halation in that place, it delivers 700lp/mm and it is removed very easy, with no pinky stuff.


/* OP, Sorry for the off */

[Wayne]

Question;
I just orderer 30 sheets of TRIX320 from B&H for $240 without shipping. I now see that I could have gotten 50 sheets of Ilford HP5+ for less than that........Is TRIX that much better??

Neil

It better be.

[interneg]

Commercial emulsions are industrial secrets, even Mowrey says sometimes he is not allowed to speak about something because non disclorure agreements.

I'm learning... I've been reading some 150h about emulsions (good before bed :)), there is a lot of antique free literature. 1941 "Photographic Emulsion Technique" (Thorne Baker) speaks about Self-Screening emulsion, Denise use a well known term, not "invented" at all.

A very great deal has changed since then - a lot of it in the decade or so following the publication of that book, and then there's the issue of omissions of crucial details in Baker et al.


Fomapan and TMXY have large, extensive (Blue, pink) dyes inside that cannot be well related to sensitization, until I know about the dye sensitization formulation. So single possibility I see (and I'm not Ron...) is self-screening, at least in part. This is my guess from what I know.

The pinky stuff is a big mess, it does not make sense that the anti-halation layer crucifies photographers in that way, with those extended fixing or washing times. Also it does not make much sense as a sensitizing dye, because the ammounts used for sensitization, nobody said what chemical is (until I know)...

What you seem to be basing your observations on is the stuff that washes out of the film at various stages of processing depending on choice of chemistry. Consider for a second that all paper emulsions use dyes too, (but no anti-halation layer) - and have you ever seen visible 'dye' wash out of paper? Consider too that there might well be various dyes getting washed out, but you don't know whether the pink dye you observed is a mix of multiple dyes creating that hue, or a single dye. You don't need a lot of dye to create that level of colour in a beaker of water.

I recall that Kodak films use a 'layered dye technique' that seems to have originated with the colour films & seems to play a part in making the dyes harder to wash out. C-41 fix which is close to neutral pH & contains thiocyante seems to remove it very well indeed. I suspect that the dyes in question may have a lot to do with reducing internal reflections between layers to enhance sharpness/ acutance/ resolution etc. Ron Mowrey reports that the dye(s) in question are rapidly destroyed by sulphite & oxygen - & indeed Kodak's recommendation for getting rid of excess pink dye is to use HCA.

And that's before we consider that some dyes might wash out without you noticing - indeed, the dye that comes off Delta 400 is a pretty powerful purple colour, but most people don't use C-41 fix on the stuff so they won't have seen it generally come out in one go...

Anyway, if you read a little deeper into the relevant chapter of Baker you'll note that he states it is crucial that you do not add too much sensitising dye such that you are "deeply coloring the grains and the surrounding gelatin" otherwise you end up making a filter rather than sensitising the film. And that the amount of yellow dye he talks about elsewhere for 'self screening' is very small in quantity. Either way, almost everything in Baker is pretty obsolete when talking about Delta/ TMAX etc, so your wish to link correlations (dyes that come out in the processing stages) & causations (spectral sensitisations/ screening/ whatever) are likely fallacious, unless you know specifically how the dyes are being used in the multiple emulsion components & their inter-relationships - and that arcane knowledge is highly commercially sensitive.

And to restate Koraks' comment, Iridium seems to be the big thing along with Osmium complexes & Rhodium salts for carrying out emulsion tweaks for things like LIRF etc.

[Pere Casals]

A very great deal has changed since then - a lot of it in the decade or so following the publication of that book, and then there's the issue of omissions of crucial details in Baker et al.

I was just pointing the existence of self-screening emulsions, since long time ago, as it was asked, or doubted.



Consider for a second that all paper emulsions use dyes too, (but no anti-halation layer) - and have you ever seen visible 'dye' wash out of paper?


Paper is very low ISO, and doesn't need spectral response equilibrium, you may know current multigrade has 3 emulsions, one has no dye sensitization at all, only blue sensitive, another one is green sensitized, perhaps with plain erythrosine, and a 3rd one is in the mid, just to regulate contrast, but not to get a color to BW translation.

The ammount of dye for dye sensitization in a film (or paper) won't show in the used developer, because quantity is very low, and also the dye in the emulsion (before coating) can be washed off after sensitization, without loss, as linked dye molleculas will remain.






What you seem to be basing your observations on is the stuff that washes out of the film at various stages of processing depending on choice of chemistry. Consider for a second that all paper emulsions use dyes too, (but no anti-halation layer) - and have you ever seen visible 'dye' wash out of paper? Consider too that there might well be various dyes getting washed out, but you don't know whether the pink dye you observed is a mix of multiple dyes creating that hue, or a single dye. You don't need a lot of dye to create that level of colour in a beaker of water.

I recall that Kodak films use a 'layered dye technique' that seems to have originated with the colour films & seems to play a part in making the dyes harder to wash out. C-41 fix which is close to neutral pH & contains thiocyante seems to remove it very well indeed. I suspect that the dyes in question may have a lot to do with reducing internal reflections between layers to enhance sharpness/ acutance/ resolution etc. Ron Mowrey reports that the dye(s) in question are rapidly destroyed by sulphite & oxygen - & indeed Kodak's recommendation for getting rid of excess pink dye is to use HCA.

And that's before we consider that some dyes might wash out without you noticing - indeed, the dye that comes off Delta 400 is a pretty powerful purple colour, but most people don't use C-41 fix on the stuff so they won't have seen it generally come out in one go...

Anyway, if you read a little deeper into the relevant chapter of Baker you'll note that he states it is crucial that you do not add too much sensitising dye such that you are "deeply coloring the grains and the surrounding gelatin" otherwise you end up making a filter rather than sensitising the film. And that the amount of yellow dye he talks about elsewhere for 'self screening' is very small in quantity. Either way, almost everything in Baker is pretty obsolete when talking about Delta/ TMAX etc, so your wish to link correlations (dyes that come out in the processing stages) & causations (spectral sensitisations/ screening/ whatever) are likely fallacious, unless you know specifically how the dyes are being used in the multiple emulsion components & their inter-relationships - and that arcane knowledge is highly commercially sensitive.

And to restate Koraks' comment, Iridium seems to be the big thing along with Osmium complexes & Rhodium salts for carrying out emulsion tweaks for things like LIRF etc.





the stuff that washes out of the film

Let's go to the core of our discussion: Do TMX use self-screening? I say (very probably) yes.


Look, just develop TMX and fix 1min, you get a pretty pinky negative !!!

This pinky screen was there when you took the shoot, so it was filtering your light. And this pinky screen was modifiying the TMX emulsion spectral response.


Do the pinky stuff has other function? I don't know.

Does it come from the back of the film instead from emulsion? this is easy to test. Use adhesive tape to protect one side and wash...


Can I be wrong ? yes... but this is what I concluded...

Pink there... so it was filtering light !!!

[gerry yaum]

Question;
I just orderer 30 sheets of TRIX320 from B&H for $240 without shipping. I now see that I could have gotten 50 sheets of Ilford HP5+ for less than that........Is TRIX that much better??

Neil
I love my Tri-x, I worship my Tri-x but the price difference has really got me thinking. I might eventually be going HP5 in all my film formats but 35mm. The HP5 always seems flatter to me, let sharp tonality than Tri-x. The price thou gosh, such a difference. As Kodak does stuff like raising prices, using 10 sheet boxes instead of the 50s, etc they make it more and more difficult to stay with their product.

[LabRat]

I seem to remember that with some of the early TMX from the late 80's, the base was tinted to a magenta color, that a rep told me was the correct MG filter for the Kodak PC papers at that time... The "normal" filter was something like grade 2 3/4 or something like that was needed... I don't know what the modern TMX films are like to use, or what colors wash out of it... (I never used it, too screwy, and vowed to only use it if it were the last film in the world... And they replaced Pan-X, Super-XX, and others with this stuff at that time!?!!! I went with Ilford & Agfa after that...)

But with most dye backings, a pre-soak with a tiny amount of PF gets most of it out early in the process...

Steve K

[interneg]

I seem to remember that with some of the early TMX from the late 80's, the base was tinted to a magenta color, that a rep told me was the correct MG filter for the Kodak PC papers at that time... The "normal" filter was something like grade 2 3/4 or something like that was needed... I don't know what the modern TMX films are like to use, or what colors wash out of it... (I never used it, too screwy, and vowed to only use it if it were the last film in the world... And they replaced Pan-X, Super-XX, and others with this stuff at that time!?!!! I went with Ilford & Agfa after that...)

But with most dye backings, a pre-soak with a tiny amount of PF gets most of it out early in the process...

Steve K

That chimes with what I understand about the residual dye - that it should have no contrast effect, other than as (at worst) an ND filter.

[interneg]

Paper is very low ISO, and doesn't need spectral response equilibrium, you may know current multigrade has 3 emulsions, one has no dye sensitization at all, only blue sensitive, another one is green sensitized, perhaps with plain erythrosine, and a 3rd one is in the mid, just to regulate contrast, but not to get a color to BW translation.

The ammount of dye for dye sensitization in a film (or paper) won't show in the used developer, because quantity is very low, and also the dye in the emulsion (before coating) can be washed off after sensitization, without loss, as linked dye molleculas will remain.

Dye sensitisation happens as a part of the 'finals' immediately before coating.

Dyes are used in all the emulsion components, your approach is massively simplistic - Polywarmtone (which had a much more restricted contrast range than MGIV or Kodak's MG paper) used 4 dyes in the emulsion - Mirko from Fotoimpex said that the need to replace 2 of those dyes in the emulsions was a significant problem that had to be overcome in order to potentially re-introduce the paper. Just because an emulsion is 'blue sensitive' doesn't mean there are no dyes used.



Look, just develop TMX and fix 1min, you get a pretty pinky negative !!!

So will any other negative - Ilford will be purple-ish. Fuji somewhere between the 2. You've clearly not even done a basic level of due diligence. What you are seeing is residual dye, most likely under the emulsion layers. It takes time to diffuse out & go away.


This pinky screen was there when you took the shoot, so it was filtering your light. And this pinky screen was modifiying the TMX emulsion spectral response.


Do the pinky stuff has other function? I don't know.

Does it come from the back of the film instead from emulsion? this is easy to test. Use adhesive tape to protect one side and wash...


Can I be wrong ? yes... but this is what I concluded...

Pink there... so it was filtering light !!!

OK, let's pull this apart:

Some LF films have an anti-halation layer on the backside of the film, and elsewhere you get Rem-Jet on the back of ECN-2 & K-14 films as the anti-halation layer. Pretty much everything else has the anti-hal layer immediately above the base support & below the emulsion layer. Either way, it will have no effect on the emulsion at exposure in terms of light filtering. With more sophisticated modern films where the grains are tightly packed together, it will take a longer amount of time for this anti-hal layer to diffuse out to the surface & wash away. Indeed this tight packing of emulsion layers (which has major benefits in terms of sharpness, resolution etc via inter-layer effects) is a significant issue in current C-41 films where I recall specific couplers have to be used in order to get the bleach to work properly in a suitable amount of time.

[Pere Casals]

Dye sensitisation happens as a part of the 'finals' immediately before coating.

Following Mowrey advice, I add Erythrosine in the KBr soup before adding silver nitrate (precipitation), as dye sensitization effect is 200% compared with adding it with finals.

Also Pinacyanol (panchromatic) is added after coating and drying, in a bath (in darkness), in this way plates can be poured under safe light.

Sensitizing dyes can be added with finals, but is only one possibility. If dye is toxic (like cryptocyanine for IR) one may want to add it before washing...

We can talk how today's commercial emulsion are sensitized...






So will any other negative - Ilford will be purple-ish. Fuji somewhere between the 2. You've clearly not even done a basic level of due diligence. What you are seeing is residual dye, most likely under the emulsion layers. It takes time to diffuse out & go away.


I repeat, the dyes used for sensitization are in so small amount that are not seen in the used developer, coming from film or from paper, the pinky or purple-ish are not from sensitization.


So, let's concrete...

1) Is the purple-ish or pinky coming form emulsion or not ?

2) If coming from emulsion... does it filter your light or not ?

3) If filtering your light... is it "partial self-screening" or not ?

[koraks]

1: probably not.
2: no, if 1 is no.
3: irrelevant if 2 is no.
Why jump to conclusions?

[Pere Casals]

1: probably not.
2: no, if 1 is no.
3: irrelevant if 2 is no.
Why jump to conclusions?


If the pinky does not come from inside the emulsion, then 2 and 3 are not relevant.

But something is for sure, the pinky does not come from the back of the film, so... perhaps "1" is probably yes...

Do you agree with that the pinky comes from the front?

[koraks]

As has been pointed out before and not just by me, an antihalation dye is frequently embedded in a layer between the base and the actual emulsion. There's just no good indication that the pink stuff in TMX is not an antihalation dye. You also never really went into the issue of throwing light away by filtering instead of tailoring the spectral response curve by mixing differently sensitized emulsions. This makes much more sense than creating a balanced emulsion and then filtering it in situ with dyes, resulting in reduced speed.

[Pere Casals]

As has been pointed out before and not just by me, an antihalation dye is frequently embedded in a layer between the base and the actual emulsion. There's just no good indication that the pink stuff in TMX is not an antihalation dye. You also never really went into the issue of throwing light away by filtering instead of tailoring the spectral response curve by mixing differently sensitized emulsions. This makes much more sense than creating a balanced emulsion and then filtering it in situ with dyes, resulting in reduced speed.

You have dozens of films with perfect anti-halation layers without the pinky problems. Does Kodak need to create problems to photographers with a pinky anti-halation layer ???

Pinky does not come from the back, because after slight fixing in the back you only have a pure plastic base, without nothing on it.

Also IMHO it is really weird thinking it comes from anti-halation layer. Why the hell an anti-halation layer has to mess with pink ???

So if it is in the emulsion...

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] Also IMHO it is really weird thinking it comes from anti-halation layer. Why the hell an anti-halation layer has to mess with pink ???

Quite a mystery. May I suggest that either the 'pink' results from interaction with developer, or a real 'pink'; annihilation layer works well? Perhaps one way to find out is to fix and wash an undeveloped film ???

[Jim Noel]

question;
i just orderer 30 sheets of trix320 from b&h for $240 without shipping. I now see that i could have gotten 50 sheets of ilford hp5+ for less than that........is trix that much better??

Neil

no!

[Pere Casals]

Quite a mystery. May I suggest that either the 'pink' results from interaction with developer, or a real 'pink'; annihilation layer works well? Perhaps one way to find out is to fix and wash an undeveloped film ???

IMHO pink is not by chance.

It has been repeated a lot that's from the anti-halation layer...

Yes... fixing and undeveloped strip would say if it comes from interaction with developer... but... Was not Kodak able to solve that mess ?


For the moment we know (I think) next:

> It is a nasty and undesired side effect, photographers don't like it. If it is there it's because Kodak thinks is good for something.

> Sexton said TMX was designed to need less a yellow filter.

> It does not come from back, but from emulsion side.

> An anti-halation does need to have that effect to be perfect (ADOX CMS-20 allows for 800 Lp/mm, in part thanks to AH layer performance, and no pink)

> Sensitizing dyes are in a very low proportion and do not show, also dyes can be washed out after sensitization without performance loss, as "useful dye" remains captured by silver crystalls.

> No Kodak official explanation about what it is and why it is there, until I know.



I've only one explanation that I find plausible: "partially self-screening" to adjust spectral footprint. It is the single reason I find...

Of course I can be wrong, but I've not found another (to me) plausible reason.


OP, Sorry for the Off. I Hope it helps a bit to understand some film differences can be matched by filtering

[interneg]

IMHO pink is not by chance.

It has been repeated a lot that's from the anti-halation layer...

Yes... fixing and undeveloped strip would say if it comes from interaction with developer... but... Was not Kodak able to solve that mess ?


For the moment we know (I think) next:

> It is a nasty and undesired side effect, photographers don't like it. If it is there it's because Kodak thinks is good for something.

> Sexton said TMX was designed to need less a yellow filter.

> It does not come from back, but from emulsion side.

> An anti-halation does need to have that effect to be perfect (ADOX CMS-20 allows for 800 Lp/mm, in part thanks to AH layer performance, and no pink)

> Sensitizing dyes are in a very low proportion and do not show, also dyes can be washed out after sensitization without performance loss, as "useful dye" remains captured by silver crystalls.

> No Kodak official explanation about what it is and why it is there, until I know.



I've only one explanation that I find plausible: "partially self-screening" to adjust spectral footprint. It is the single reason I find...

Of course I can be wrong, but I've not found another (to me) plausible reason.


OP, Sorry for the Off. I Hope it helps a bit to understand some film differences can be matched by filtering


Here's the answer: "New films use a combination of layered dyes and dyes complexed with Osmium compounds (2 electron sensitization). These dyes can leave a pink or magenta stain in some films. Since dyes have a positive charge, acid fixers are more prone to this. Since high Iodide and strong dyes inhibit fixation, longer fix times and longer wash times are needed, especially if you season or re-use your fixer and especially if it is acid or neutral." (http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/pink-magenta-stain-not-blue-which-is-a-different-issue.69462/) Those are Ron Mowrey's words on the subject from 2010, & he's more likely to know than the rest of us. The rest is going to be confidential Kodak technology. I'd suggest you take this over to APUG & ask some actual emulsion engineers...

[Pere Casals]

Here's the answer: "New films use a combination of layered dyes and dyes complexed with Osmium compounds (2 electron sensitization). These dyes can leave a pink or magenta stain in some films. Since dyes have a positive charge, acid fixers are more prone to this. Since high Iodide and strong dyes inhibit fixation, longer fix times and longer wash times are needed, especially if you season or re-use your fixer and especially if it is acid or neutral." (http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/pink-magenta-stain-not-blue-which-is-a-different-issue.69462/) Those are Ron Mowrey's words on the subject from 2010, & he's more likely to know than the rest of us. The rest is going to be confidential Kodak technology. I'd suggest you take this over to APUG & ask some actual emulsion engineers...


Good point, now we know what it is, osmium complexed dyes. So pinky is in the emulsion.

So now we can debate if this pinky also filters the light. This has to be matched with Sexton statement saying TMX needs less a yellow filter,but as magenta and yellow are "near" comlementary... So TMX emulsion should have an strong yellow sensitivity that is perhaps compensated with the pinky screen...

What I say is that pinky stain is also an strong screen after all, but the sum of the screen with the native spectral response delivers the final footprint.

(Sure they would have used something green-ish if they if they have had that need...)


(Note all that people saying it was AH during decades !!! :))

[interneg]

Good point, now we know what it is, osmium complexed dyes. So pinky is in the emulsion.

So now we can debate if this pinky also filters the light. This has to be matched with Sexton statement saying TMX needs less a yellow filter,but as magenta and yellow are comlementary... So TMX emulsion should have an strong yellow sensitivity that is perhaps compensated with the pinky screen...

What I say is that pinky stain is also an strong screen after all, but the sum of the screen with the native spectral response delivers the final footprint.

(Sure they would have used something green-ish if they if they have had that need...)


(Note all that people saying it was AH during decades !!! :))

It's going to be massively more complex than you assume. You are working at a 1940s level of emulsion knowledge from your textbook (if we're being extremely generous) & TMAX's starting point was using the cutting edge of 1980s emulsion knowledge to start from. The pink residual dye might contain acutance dyes intended to control reflections between layers, or to control interlayer effects (halation, edge effects, etc) - for all we know, the TMAX films might be 3 emulsion layers or more & use 5 emulsion components - at which point controlling their inter-relationships becomes vital. Go to APUG & ask.

[axs810]

correct me if I'm wrong but since you are talking about TMAX (a tabular grain film not a cubic grain film like the OP is asking about)...in theory when talking about tabular grain film - the greater surface area of the grain the more dye it can absorb (which affects light sensitivity) and being a different film grain structure I would assume that's why the residual dye is different. I wouldn't necessarily link it to "self-screening" but IF it were any different I wouldn't see why the manufacture wouldn't advertise as such...I mean look at Fujifilm Acros that's an orthopanchromatic film.


Sorry OP...this will be my last comment about this

[ben_hutcherson]

Only here can you start talking about TXP and end up with someone talking/speculating/arguing about TMY.

[interneg]

correct me if I'm wrong but since you are talking about TMAX (a tabular grain film not a cubic grain film like the OP is asking about)...in theory when talking about tabular grain film - the greater surface area of the grain the more dye it can absorb (which affects light sensitivity) and being a different film grain structure I would assume that's why the residual dye is different. I wouldn't necessarily link it to "self-screening" but IF it were any different I wouldn't see why the manufacture wouldn't advertise as such...I mean look at Fujifilm Acros that's an orthopanchromatic film.


Sorry OP...this will be my last comment about this

For what it's worth, all the films under discussion are 'controlled crystal growth' films - it's just that the current TMAX's (and TX/TXP shares a fair bit of technology with them) and Ilford's Delta's & Fuji Acros are somewhat more sophisticated in the way they use different grain structures, which while they may use tabular grains in some emulsion components, cubic grains are also used elsewhere in the structure. There's a number of posts from Ron Mowrey (Photo Engineer) over at APUG in the emulsion making section that covers BW film design history in considerable detail if such things interest you.

[Pere Casals]

It's going to be massively more complex than you assume. You are working at a 1940s level of emulsion knowledge from your textbook (if we're being extremely generous) & TMAX's starting point was using the cutting edge of 1980s emulsion knowledge to start from. The pink residual dye might contain acutance dyes intended to control reflections between layers, or to control interlayer effects (halation, edge effects, etc) - for all we know, the TMAX films might be 3 emulsion layers or more & use 5 emulsion components - at which point controlling their inter-relationships becomes vital. Go to APUG & ask.


As you said (great contribution!), the pink is... (fact) "in emulsion" sensitizing dye complexed with osmium compounds, but stick to what Ron said... not acutance dyes or other !!!




interneg, I'm not talking about photochemical complexity, but about clear facts.



TMX is a Pink Panther, with a remarkable (fact) and irrefutable pink screen in it, filtering light inside emulsion. I repeat, now this is a fact.

So no doubt (fact) that the remarkable pinky screen contributes to the final (and desired) spectral foodprint, probably (guess) as a controlled parameter.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PD: Note that "layered dyes" is not "layers of emulsion"... but layers of different dyes around single crystals...

http://www.google.ch/patents/US6361932

IMHO TMX has 2 layers of sensitive emulsion IIRC, and at least the outer one should be of "layered dyes" type...

[Pere Casals]

Sorry OP, for the /*off topic*/ about film nature side debate.

Anyway this time it has been productive, at least (speaking about me) I've learned a lot.

[James Morris]

grain is way irrelevant in 8x10...


I'm not sure about that. Try a portrait with 8x10 TMAX (developed in xtol) and FP4 (developed in rodinal), and contact print them. They'll be very different.

[interneg]

As you said, the pink is... (fact) "in emulsion" sensitizing dye complexed with osmium compounds, so stick to what Ron said... not acutance dyes or other !!!




interneg, I'm not talking about photochemical complexity, but about clear facts.



TMX is a Pink Panther, with a remarkable (fact) and irrefutable pink screen in it, filtering light. I repeat, this is a fact.

So no doubt (fact) that the remarkable pinky screen contributes to the final (and desired) spectral foodprint, probably (guess) as a controlled parameter.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PD: Note that "layered dyes" is not layers of emulsion... but layers of different dyes around single crystals...

http://www.google.ch/patents/US6361932

IMHO TMX has 2 layes of emulsion IIRC, and at least the outer one should be of "layered dyes" type...

In essence that patent describes the use of a sensitising & acutance dye utilised in a way to maximise sensitivity to light enabling higher speed for a lower grain. In other words a cyanine (panchromatic sensitising) dye & one that isn't. The one that isn't panchro is the acutance dye. It's there to filter out unwanted bits of the spectrum to (amongst other things) enhance sharpness, reduce reflection issues etc. What you are attempting to call a 'screen' may well be an acutance dye.

The pink dye in question - either for green sensitisation or to control sensitivity to green light - seems to not be broken down during processing as easily as most other dyes. It can be removed by a longer wash or by sulfite or by exposure to oxygen. Within the dyes listed in the patent, there are several that would comply with the colour that comes off TMAX or Ilford or many other films. Indeed, several of the dye families mentioned in there have quite a number of intense colours in the pink to purple range that would seem likely candidates. Owing to the manner of the use of these dyes and the greater available surface area in modern controlled crystal growth emulsions, they are likely to be used in larger quantities than in previous generations of films - it's all aimed at making as much of the silver usable as possible & minimising wasted silver in the emulsion.

Given that people have reported similar colours with Ilford films, it seems that the dye family in question is in widespread use.

[interneg]

I'm not sure about that. Try a portrait with 8x10 TMAX (developed in xtol) and FP4 (developed in rodinal), and contact print them. They'll be very different.

Indeed. And even if you ran them in the same developer adjusted to the same contrast they'd be different. But that would require him to actually try the materials, rather than adsorbing synthetic fluff from bad simulation programs...

[Pere Casals]

I'm not sure about that. Try a portrait with 8x10 TMAX (developed in xtol) and FP4 (developed in rodinal), and contact print them. They'll be very different.

What grain in 8x10 contact copy ??

FP4 vs TMX contact copies may look very different, but not becacuse grain, just realize what is the size of grains.

[Pere Casals]

Given that people have reported similar colours with Ilford films, it seems that the dye family in question is in widespread use.

interneg...

I showed you the patent only because you said might be "3 emulsion layers or more", when TMX it is 2 sensitive emulsion layers only... a slow cubic one and a T-grain, I thought your confusion was comming from the "layered dye" concept, that's not about "3 emulsion layers or more", but no... just 2 sensitive layers !




What you are attempting to call a 'screen' may well be an acutance dye.

T-grain emulsion layer is pretty pink, it is irrefutable that TMX is in fact a "partial self-screening" emulsion.

It doesn't matter why a color dye is in the sensitive emulsion, if it filters light then self-screening happens.

Still an emulsion may have additional colouring dyes inside that are destroyed during process... but I don't know much about that...

I think I've said all I should about that.

[dasBlute]

We often tell ourselves stories, sometimes we even believe them. And then, once that bridge has been crossed,
we tend to believe the 'evidence' that supports us and dismiss all else. We like being 'right'.

All this blathering, on and on, pages and pages of it, filled with suppositions, logical fallacies,
specious statements presented as 'facts', ad nauseam; what's the point of all this effort?
To suggest that a film has a spectral response?! Alert the press! Design your own emulsion
and see what you get. TMX has a fairly linear response, as much or more than most films.
Millions of images have used it; it's a fine film, one of the best *ever* made,
and I will miss it when it is gone.

But what do you care?

It's not about the 'truth' here, it's about being 'right'. You're tilting at windmills.



T-grain emulsion layer is pretty pink, it is irrefutable that TMX is in fact a "partial self-screening" emulsion.

[Pere Casals]

We often tell ourselves stories, sometimes we even believe them. And then, once that bridge has been crossed,
we tend to believe the 'evidence' that supports us and dismiss all else. We like being 'right'.

All this blathering, on and on, pages and pages of it, filled with suppositions, logical fallacies,
specious statements presented as 'facts', ad nauseam; what's the point of all this effort?
To suggest that a film has a spectral response?! Alert the press! Design your own emulsion
and see what you get. TMX has a fairly linear response, as much or more than most films.
Millions of images have used it; it's a fine film, one of the best *ever* made,
and I will miss it when it is gone.

But what do you care?

It's not about the 'truth' here, it's about being 'right'. You're tilting at windmills.


I answer you in PM, as I was finished in this off topic.

[ben_hutcherson]

Funny, but unexposed 35mm TMX and TMY look the same as pretty much all other B&W emulsions and also give the same colors when washing.

If the pink dye were so integral to the spectral response of the film, would they not also be present in 35mm?

[Pere Casals]

Funny, but unexposed 35mm TMX and TMY look the same as pretty much all other B&W emulsions and also give the same colors when washing.

If the pink dye were so integral to the spectral response of the film, would they not also be present in 35mm?

I answer you in PM, as I was finished in this off topic.