Digital BW, The Print

> Tri-X is one of my favorite films for grain, so I was surprised to read
> that it's no good for scanning. I guess everybody's tastes are
> different... I've tried numerous films, and I keep coming back to Tri-X.
>
> I usually rate it at 800 to get more speed and grain. We have about five
> hours of weak daylight here in Norway at the moment, so I need all the
> speed I can get...
>
> I scan on the Minolta 5400 and find that it can resolve the grain
> nicely.
>
> On the front page of my site images 2-4 and 8-9 are Tri-X rated at 800.
> Of course, it's kind of hard to tell what the grain is like because of
> the JPEG compression.
>
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no

Hi Daniel,

For 35mm, if you like Tri-X, try Neopan 1600 developed in XTOL, 1:1 or even
1:3.  It's got very smooth tonality, and really quite reduced grain for that
speed.  I use Delta 3200 rated at 1600 for MF, same developer.

I do not like Tri-X in XTOL BTW...

Regards,

Austin