Digital BW, The Print

Hi Anthony,

> > The amount of grain really depends on how you expose it,
> > and how you develop it.
>
> So I've discovered.
>
> When I first starting using Tri-X again after a decades-long hiatus, I had
> it developed at a one-hour lab.  The results seemed terribly grainy and
> contrasty.  Turns out the lab uses some sort of hyperaggressive Ilford
> chemistry that develops film at lightspeed; the chemistry is matched to
> their printing, so their prints from the film look fine, but when you scan
> the negatives yourself the result is scary.
>
> Once I discovered this (only just short of giving up on Tri-X,
> even though I
> didn't remember it being _that_ grainy), I started developing it
> myself.  I
> use D-76 straight.  The results are a zillion times better than
> the one-hour
> lab--quite beautiful, really, given my awkward and very casual approach to
> lab parameters.  It scans very nicely.
>
> Still, the grain is more than I'd like to see.

I'm glad to hear you're giving Tri-X a real try...and I strongly suggest
trying D-76 1:1 and seeing how you like the reduced grain, and the enhanced
tonality...

> When I shoot TXP in 120 format, though, the results are much,
> much nicer, with far less visible grain, nicer tones, and better shadow
> detail.

Yes, I agree...one of my favorite films for MF B&W use...and again, I can
shoot from 200/400 and 800...

> If I want grain-free photos, I shoot Portra 400BW (when I'm lazy,
> or when I
> need Tri-X-like speed) or Technical Pan (when I'm not lazy and
> when there is
> enough light or a tripod).

Knowing you, as I know you...I'd recommend Plus-X...I really think you'll
love it.  Again, D-76 1:1.  It's a physically thick film, with VERY
long/rich tonality, and incredibly low grain...  It scans simply amazingly
on my scanner.  Give it a try, and let me know what you think...

Regards,

Austin