Kodak Tri x 320 What is your opinion ?

[Tin Can]

We have no idea what your needs are

very secretive as many are here

I love what many photographers have done with Tri-X, both journalistically with 35mm cameras, and in terms of large format contact prints, even enlargements sometimes. It's just not a film I find particularly compatible with my own style or needs.

[bob carnie]

Ummmm.... Canadians ARE Americans, also; albeit they may prefer to be refered to as North Americans.

Since we're loving on Canada... 50% of my ancestors, including a few recent ones, were Canadians. They were all nice people.

You have never met me in person.... most people think I am an a hole.

[Tin Can]

i knew that!

me too

You have never met me in person.... most people think I am an a hole.

[Drew Wiley]

No alt printer can be all that evil (except Mortensen).

[Alan Townsend]

Alan - The anti-halation dye or "pink" of TMax easily washes totally out. Non-issue, even with the earliest versions of TMax. "Flat tonal response"???? That equates to underdevelopment, plain and simple. So please don't transfer an incomplete learning curve, way back when, into an unwarranted stereotype.

Drew Wiley,

I do not like TMax films. This is personal preference. The dye does not wash out easily, it requires additional steps and leaves a curly mess of a film that won't lie flat. This reduces sharpness more than the low granularity increases it.

Flat tonal response means a nearly linear H&D curve. I prefer films with a more traditional curve, which gives more contrast in the midtones and less in the shadows and highlights. I also appreciate a little more grain as well.

I recently read an article online that said Tmax is more like digital than other films. When I read that, I thought for a while and realized it was true, and that was why I don't like either one. It was after I started using Tmax, scanning negatives, and printing digitally, that I quit photography. I don't like digital because its too easy and I love chemicals. I have a chemical addiction to photography.

Our eye/brain systems do not see micromesh like pixel arrays because there's nothing like that in nature and therefore no need. We see film grain because it's organic, just like the sensors in our maculas. In film, the sensors are the randomly sized and shaped grains that are not noise but signal. In digital, we know there are tiny arrays of pixels, but never see those pixels on the print. I wonder why there all the confusion.

Going off topic briefly, in my digital pictures, I want to see the pixels the same way as in my film photography I want to see the grain. Otherwise, how do I know they are sharp?

Regards,

Alan Townsend

[Tin Can]

I respect your thinking.

Organic in process

Drew Wiley,

I do not like TMax films. This is personal preference. The dye does not wash out easily, it requires additional steps and leaves a curly mess of a film that won't lie flat. This reduces sharpness more than the low granularity increases it.

Flat tonal response means a nearly linear H&D curve. I prefer films with a more traditional curve, which gives more contrast in the midtones and less in the shadows and highlights. I also appreciate a little more grain as well.

I recently read an article online that said Tmax is more like digital than other films. When I read that, I thought for a while and realized it was true, and that was why I don't like either one. It was after I started using Tmax, scanning negatives, and printing digitally, that I quit photography. I don't like digital because its too easy and I love chemicals. I have a chemical addiction to photography.

Our eye/brain systems do not see micromesh like pixel arrays because there's nothing like that in nature and therefore no need. We see film grain because it's organic, just like the sensors in our maculas. In film, the sensors are the randomly sized and shaped grains that are not noise but signal. In digital, we know there are tiny arrays of pixels, but never see those pixels on the print. I wonder why there all the confusion.

Going off topic briefly, in my digital pictures, I want to see the pixels the same way as in my film photography I want to see the grain. Otherwise, how do I know they are sharp?

Regards,

Alan Townsend

[Michael R]

Alan Townsend,

Since you’ve indicated you are more interested in objective science than belief systems, you really need to seek out better quality information.

[Tin Can]

Stop it

[Richard Wasserman]

We like what we like, it's all good and we don't need to justify artistic choices. I've ordered a box of 4x5 Tr-x to compare it to TMY-2 that I have been using for many years. Should be interesting—who knows where it will lead

[Oren Grad]

S/N is now << 1.