Digital BW, The Print

Chuck, the film ws plus X , not Tri x.  My friend, whose scitex did the scans, told me it happens occasionally.  Scitex gave a few reasons / solutions such as the scanner wasn't properly warmed up or the negative was not sitting properly on the cut out mask.
He'll just scan them again when he gets the time.
There was no GEM or ICE software used in the scan.
Thanks
David Aschkenas

I read today that Kodak as reformulated Tri-X to "straighten out the S 
curve."  Has anyone seen it and if so how much speed rating change and 
development change is required to get a good scan.

The article also went on to say that although Kodak has been pushing 
T-Max films, good old Tri-X is still is biggest seller across the board 
in all formats.

Truman

Kodak already came out with a new Tri-x... at least 6-8 months ago... so I'm guessing 
you are talking about that... at least I hope that's what you're talking about and not 
ANOTHER change!

After I did some PEI tests with the new Tri-x and compared them to the old Tri-x I 
found that I had to go from ISO 320 to ISO 250.  My dev times stayed the same. (11:
10 @ 68 deg, D76 1:1)

I can't really say there is a huge difference between the two.  Maybe a little less grain 
on the new stuff.  I never really examined it closely though.

Jeff
http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Truman Prevatt 
<tprevatt@m...> wrote:

> I read today that Kodak as reformulated Tri-X to "straighten out the S 
> curve."  Has anyone seen it and if so how much speed rating change and 
> development change is required to get a good scan.
> 
> The article also went on to say that although Kodak has been pushing 
> T-Max films, good old Tri-X is still is biggest seller across the board 
> in all formats.
> 
> Truman

I've got a big stock of Tri-X 4x5 in the frig so was somewhat shocked 
today when I picked up a copy of "View Camera" and saw the article about 
Kodak, "fixing it."  So it is a stop slower and same development times. 
That's interesting. The writer of the article predicted (without any 
testing) that it would be faster and take 15% longer development.

Thanks for the info. At least I'll have a good starting point and you're 
right, it doesn't seem to be much different than the stuff I have in the 
frig.

Truman

jsinger986 wrote:

> Kodak already came out with a new Tri-x... at least 6-8 months ago... 
> so I'm guessing
> you are talking about that... at least I hope that's what you're 
> talking about and not
> ANOTHER change!
>
> After I did some PEI tests with the new Tri-x and compared them to the 
> old Tri-x I
> found that I had to go from ISO 320 to ISO 250.  My dev times stayed 
> the same. (11:
> 10 @ 68 deg, D76 1:1)
>
> I can't really say there is a huge difference between the two.  Maybe 
> a little less grain
> on the new stuff.  I never really examined it closely though.
>
> Jeff
> http://www.jeffsingerphotography.com
>
> s of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

We are a photo lab and process hundreds of rolls of the new (almost 1 
year old now) Tri-X. Our conclusion is that it is indeed slower, but 
other then that - it looks the same. We have our customers just rate 
the ISO lower and we are getting consistent results.

Mark

On Dec 1, 2003, at 6:38 PM, Truman Prevatt wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <image.tiff>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>...Kodak as reformulated Tri-X to "straighten out the S curve."

Never mind that Tri-X's characteristic curve shape was one reason it has
remained so popular.

The beginning of the end of traditional films has begun. Even though I'm
mostly a B&W guy now, when Kodachrome 25 production was ended I felt very
sad.  For years that was my favorite film. 

As I understand it Kodak is consolidating all its B&W film production, which
probably means that, although the labels may stay the same, the differences
among the various films will start to decrease as the technologies and
production methods consolidate.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

With medium format I was a big fan of the old Pan-X. A great film. You 
could get large format quality with a medium format camera. I think that 
Kodak put a bunch of bucks in T-max hoping they could only produce two 
files T-max 100 and T-max 400, but some how Tri-X is still the largest 
seller. I suspect you are right they are looking to consolidate the B&W 
and even color films to a few options.

Truman

Paul Roark wrote:

> >...Kodak as reformulated Tri-X to "straighten out the S curve."
>
> Never mind that Tri-X's characteristic curve shape was one reason it has
> remained so popular.
>
> The beginning of the end of traditional films has begun. Even though I'm
> mostly a B&W guy now, when Kodachrome 25 production was ended I felt very
> sad.  For years that was my favorite film.
>
> As I understand it Kodak is consolidating all its B&W film production, 
> which
> probably means that, although the labels may stay the same, the 
> differences
> among the various films will start to decrease as the technologies and
> production methods consolidate.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

I haven't read the article, but most photographers I know who use
TX "over expose" at least a stop, and "under develop" about 10%.
I've done it that way for about 30 years. It's truly a gorgeous film
at 160 instead of 320... and 200 instead of 400 for rolls. Maybe 
Kodak finally decided to rate it relative to the way it's used

________________________________________________________________
Never respond to spam, even to "unsubscribe."
Fight back! SpamCop is free. 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've used some in 35mm.  The prints sure enough look like TriX  -- the negs
seemed too contrasty at the old developing times though.  I don't know what
if anything they've done with LF TriX.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Truman Prevatt [mailto:tprevatt@...]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:22 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] New Tri-X: anyone seen?


I read today that Kodak as reformulated Tri-X to "straighten out the S
curve."  Has anyone seen it and if so how much speed rating change and
development change is required to get a good scan.

The article also went on to say that although Kodak has been pushing
T-Max films, good old Tri-X is still is biggest seller across the board
in all formats.

Truman

Paul Roark writes:

> Never mind that Tri-X's characteristic curve shape was
> one reason it has remained so popular.

That's Kodak's standard policy:  If it's fixed, break it!

> The beginning of the end of traditional films has begun.

Just like the beginning of the end for traditional CRTs began forty
years ago.

Hi David-

Is the scanner on a line-conditioned UPS (i.e. with voltage stabilization)?
If not, this might lead to occasional banding.

Regards,


Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
Cambridge, MA 02139


on 12/1/03 6:07 PM, daschkenas@... wrote:

> Chuck, the film ws plus X , not Tri x.  My friend, whose scitex did the scans,
> told me it happens occasionally.  Scitex gave a few reasons / solutions such
> as the scanner wasn't properly warmed up or the negative was not sitting
> properly on the cut out mask.
> He'll just scan them again when he gets the time.
> There was no GEM or ICE software used in the scan.
> Thanks
> David Aschkenas

> Kodak already came out with a new Tri-x... at least 6-8 months
> ago... so I'm guessing
> you are talking about that... at least I hope that's what you're
> talking about and not
> ANOTHER change!

sheet film only came out in the new version in the last month or two.

I haven't processed much new 8x10 but while there are differences they seem
very subtle. Some suggest you may need to alter you "old" developing times
by 10% at most - quite frankly I stuck with my old times and haven't felt
the need to change them

tim

Hello Truman,

>...but some how Tri-X is still the largest seller. 

That "somehow" is not a mystery to anyone who uses it.  For a while
some years ago when I was into experimenting, I tried every new BW
film that came along (Tmax appeared during those days) and in every
case I was dissatisfied and kept coming back to good old Tri-X at 200
(or 180 for the 4x5/320 stuff), with D-76 or HC-110.  Finally I got
tired of all that and said "forget all the experimenting, I know what
I like best".  I quit jumping from film to film, settled in on Tri-X
and lived happily ever after <g>.  Great stuff.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton Jones writes:

> ... I was dissatisfied and kept coming back to good old Tri-X at 200
> (or 180 for the 4x5/320 stuff), with D-76 or HC-110.

What's the advantage to the considerable overexposure, and how much do
you adjust development to account for it?  I've always exposed and
developed as on the box; does something improve with overexposure.

I like everything about Tri-X except the grain (in 35mm--in larger
formats grain is much less of an issue).  If there is a way of
preserving everything overall but reducing grain, that would be very
cool.

Clayton Jones writes:
>> ... I was dissatisfied and kept coming back to good old Tri-X at 200
>> (or 180 for the 4x5/320 stuff), with D-76 or HC-110.

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> What's the advantage to the considerable overexposure, and how much do
> you adjust development to account for it?  

ISO film speeds are acquired by lab test which follow a very strict
testing protocol (and thank goodness, because that at least give
consistency). But those tests are done without a camera, and
so do not account for such things as bellows extension factor
or barrel extension factor (loss of light when a lens is not
focused at infinity). And even if that weren't a consideration,
it is still generally found that ISO marker speeds tend to be --
at least in negative films -- about 1/3 f/stop more than real
world shooting would ideally afford.

In other words, for about 90% of all users, a black & white ISO 400
film would be more ideally shot at an exposure index of 320.

And in consideration of any loss of light due to barrel extension
factor or (for view cameras) bellows extension factor, even better
to be shooting an ISO 400 negative film at a more optimum index
exposure of 250.

Now to the reason of why....

Negative films have some latitude to handle over exposure, but
very little latitude to handle any underexposure.

If I person shoots an ISO 400 negative film at 400, there is a more
than good chance that shadow areas will be clear and lacking in
detail. And if there ain't detail in that dark shirt you photograph,
then there's no way in the darkroom that lack of exposure can
be recovered.

People sometimes talk about "pushing film" -- deliberately 
underexposing and then compensating by overdeveloping.
Indeed, overdeveloping will increase the contrast of the
processed negatives so they can be printed. But no amount
of overdeveloping will bring back shadow detail which 
wasn't there when the image was first photographed. If
shadow detail ain't there at the time of exposure, no amount 
of compensation in developing can help with that.

So ideally, we adjust our exposures with negative films
to most make sure we have sufficient shadow detail.
And for 90% of folks, that means shooting an ISO 400 negative
film at exposure index of either 320 or 250 (i.e. either 1/3
or 2/3 f/stop from the suggested ISO marker).

Once this is established, only then is a person in a
position to determine what their best film developing time
will be and this has nothing any more to do with film
speed, but only determines how contrasty the negatives
will become.

And all of that gets summed up into a short phrase
B&W photographers have used for years and years:

EXPOSE FOR THE SHADOWS AND DEVELOP
FOR THE HIGHLIGHTS

(or more to the point, expose for adequate shadow
detail and find a developing time which gives the
image a good contrast range).

***********
   

> I've always exposed and developed as on the box; does 
> something improve with overexposure.

Try shooting your ISO 400 films at an exposure index
like 250 (that is to say, set your lightmeter to 250).

The seemingly slight overexposure will have you producing
negs which have more shadow detail and are easier to 
print because of this.

And you may also find that in shooting this way, the grain negs 
seem slightly less grainy (just like a few grains of sand
on the table look grainier than a whole bunch of sand on the table).

Then, develop as you normally do.

If you find that your end negatives seem too contrasty, then
next time, cut back on your developing times. And if your
negatives seem to flat, then slightly increase your developing
time next time. 

And just as a rough rule of thumb, an developing increase
of about 40% will be about equal to one paper grade.

And so, for example, if you find developing your negatives
for 10 minutes has them printing fine on a grade 3 paper,
then processing your negs for 14 minutes will have them
probably printing fine on a grade 2 paper.

**********

Anyway, hope that's of some help,
CJ

It has more to do what the correct speed of the film rather than over 
exposure.  If you calibrate your film to a "gray scale" you will find 
with most cameras, light meters and developer combinations most film are 
over rated by one stop. So the true speed of Tri-X is really 200 (180 
for sheet film). I've started using TFX-2 and with that developer Trix-X 
is a little faster about 250.

Truman

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

> Clayton Jones writes:
>
> > ... I was dissatisfied and kept coming back to good old Tri-X at 200
> > (or 180 for the 4x5/320 stuff), with D-76 or HC-110.
>
> What's the advantage to the considerable overexposure, and how much do
> you adjust development to account for it?  I've always exposed and
> developed as on the box; does something improve with overexposure.
>
> I like everything about Tri-X except the grain (in 35mm--in larger
> formats grain is much less of an issue).  If there is a way of
> preserving everything overall but reducing grain, that would be very
> cool.
>

Hello Anthony,

>>I was dissatisfied and kept coming back to good old Tri-X at
>>200 (or 180 for the 4x5/320 stuff), with D-76 or HC-110.
 
>What's the advantage to the considerable overexposure, and how 
>much do you adjust development to account for it?  

This is one of my favorite subjects <g> but this question is taking it
to another level.  In the interests of keeping this OT thread short,
please resend to me via private email.  I'll be happy to discuss it
there.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

To be very precise about ISO ratings one should, ideally, run a series of test for each film/lens/camera/lighting combination.  Most people don't.  But, at the very least you need to know what your shutter speeds are.  Except for the developing process, the shutter is usually the most variable element in the process.  Although, with electronically controlled shutters, this may be changing as well.  Nevertheless, properly controlled, individually run test will account for all of the variations in a process including thermometer variances, etc.  Even with digital printing the resulting negative consistency is very beneficial.
 
For anyone that would actually undertake this type of testing, these testing procedures are detailed in Ansel's books, and other places.
 
It's rather amazing how your sense of control over the process goes up once you have successfully run such test.  
 
Tom Baker

C J Morgan <cjmorgan@...> wrote:
Clayton Jones writes:
>> ... I was dissatisfied and kept coming back to good old Tri-X at 200
>> (or 180 for the 4x5/320 stuff), with D-76 or HC-110.

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> What's the advantage to the considerable overexposure, and how much do
> you adjust development to account for it?  

ISO film speeds are acquired by lab test which follow a very strict
testing protocol (and thank goodness, because that at least give
consistency). But those tests are done without a camera, and
so do not account for such things as bellows extension factor
or barrel extension factor (loss of light when a lens is not
focused at infinity). And even if that weren't a consideration,
it is still generally found that ISO marker speeds tend to be --
at least in negative films -- about 1/3 f/stop more than real
world shooting would ideally afford.

In other words, for about 90% of all users, a black & white ISO 400
film would be more ideally shot at an exposure index of 320.

And in consideration of any loss of light due to barrel extension
factor or (for view cameras) bellows extension factor, even better
to be shooting an ISO 400 negative film at a more optimum index
exposure of 250.

Now to the reason of why....

Negative films have some latitude to handle over exposure, but
very little latitude to handle any underexposure.

If I person shoots an ISO 400 negative film at 400, there is a more
than good chance that shadow areas will be clear and lacking in
detail. And if there ain't detail in that dark shirt you photograph,
then there's no way in the darkroom that lack of exposure can
be recovered.

People sometimes talk about "pushing film" -- deliberately 
underexposing and then compensating by overdeveloping.
Indeed, overdeveloping will increase the contrast of the
processed negatives so they can be printed. But no amount
of overdeveloping will bring back shadow detail which 
wasn't there when the image was first photographed. If
shadow detail ain't there at the time of exposure, no amount 
of compensation in developing can help with that.

So ideally, we adjust our exposures with negative films
to most make sure we have sufficient shadow detail.
And for 90% of folks, that means shooting an ISO 400 negative
film at exposure index of either 320 or 250 (i.e. either 1/3
or 2/3 f/stop from the suggested ISO marker).

Once this is established, only then is a person in a
position to determine what their best film developing time
will be and this has nothing any more to do with film
speed, but only determines how contrasty the negatives
will become.

And all of that gets summed up into a short phrase
B&W photographers have used for years and years:

EXPOSE FOR THE SHADOWS AND DEVELOP
FOR THE HIGHLIGHTS

(or more to the point, expose for adequate shadow
detail and find a developing time which gives the
image a good contrast range).

***********
   

> I've always exposed and developed as on the box; does 
> something improve with overexposure.

Try shooting your ISO 400 films at an exposure index
like 250 (that is to say, set your lightmeter to 250).

The seemingly slight overexposure will have you producing
negs which have more shadow detail and are easier to 
print because of this.

And you may also find that in shooting this way, the grain negs 
seem slightly less grainy (just like a few grains of sand
on the table look grainier than a whole bunch of sand on the table).

Then, develop as you normally do.

If you find that your end negatives seem too contrasty, then
next time, cut back on your developing times. And if your
negatives seem to flat, then slightly increase your developing
time next time. 

And just as a rough rule of thumb, an developing increase
of about 40% will be about equal to one paper grade.

And so, for example, if you find developing your negatives
for 10 minutes has them printing fine on a grade 3 paper,
then processing your negs for 14 minutes will have them
probably printing fine on a grade 2 paper.

**********

Anyway, hope that's of some help,
CJ



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Truman Prevatt writes:

> So the true speed of Tri-X is really 200 (180 for sheet film).
> I've started using TFX-2 and with that developer Trix-X
> is a little faster about 250.

Do you still use standard development, i.e., as if it were exposed at
the nominal ISO rating instead of a lower rating?

Didn't Tri-X once have a much lower rating, which was raised in the
1950s or something?

Strangely, my negatives usually seem to be _overexposed_ when I scan
them, but maybe that is just my careless development (I'm very casual in
development, and I'm always surprised to see that the results still look
better than what I get from a lab).

As someone noted the ISO rating is correct as defined by the testing 
standard for film speed. But as with the mileage rating on a car, you 
mileage will vary. I normally do a "compensation development," agitation 
for 30 seconds every 3 minutes and one minute up front. The development 
time for my camera light meter combination is 21 minutes at 68 deg F. 
Since living the the tropics my cold water is sometimes as warm as 78, I 
like the large leeway this development gives me. The development is 
pretty good from 68 to 78 (with the normal compensation for temp). I 
have used Rodinal on Tri-X 4x5 with 1:75 dilution. That gives a pretty 
good mix that has a lot of latitude working with a large temp range.

I know I could put in some sort bath system to keep the developer at 68 
degs F, but with the latitude I get with TFX-2 it doesn't seem to be 
necessary. They scan quite nicely.

I suspect that Tri-X has change over the years and if I remember the ISO 
rating system is relatively new - maybe the late 60's. I'm pretty 
pleased with my negatives.

Truman



Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

> Truman Prevatt writes:
>
> > So the true speed of Tri-X is really 200 (180 for sheet film).
> > I've started using TFX-2 and with that developer Trix-X
> > is a little faster about 250.
>
> Do you still use standard development, i.e., as if it were exposed at
> the nominal ISO rating instead of a lower rating?
>
> Didn't Tri-X once have a much lower rating, which was raised in the
> 1950s or something?
>
> Strangely, my negatives usually seem to be _overexposed_ when I scan
> them, but maybe that is just my careless development (I'm very casual in
> development, and I'm always surprised to see that the results still look
> better than what I get from a lab).

Tri-X Users --

I'm old enough to remember when Kodak changed the speed of Tri-X. It had 
been rated at 200 prior to the change. Then in the mid 1950s they announced 
that its new speed would be 400. The film hadn't changed -- only its speed 
rating. The reason Kodak gave was the advent of wide-spread, accurate 
exposure meters, allowing them to lop off the exposure-safety latitude at 
the low end of the scale.

Years later I performed Zone System tests with Tri-X, various development 
times, prints made with both condenser and diffusion enlargers on 
Polycontrast paper (#2 filter), and patches both eyeballed and read with a 
reflection densitometer. My tests required tonal separation of swatches 
corresponding to zones 1-9. Here's what I found:

Tri-X printed with a diffusion enlarger:
Developed for 10 minutes @ 68° in D-76 diluted 1:1
Speed = 400
Provides one additional zone of separation, allowing a distinction between 
zones 9 and 10.

Tri-X printed with a condenser enlarger:
Developed for 7 minutes @ 68° in D-76 diluted 1:1
Speed = 250
Zones 9 and 10 cannot be distinguished.

Either method allowed a slight distinction to be seen between zones 0 and 1.

No telling how the new Tri-X corresponds to my old tests although my recent 
negatives (on the new film) have scanned well.

It's always worth giving film the least exposure that provides adequate 
shadow detail since additional exposure just builds grain and flattens 
highlights.

-- Victor Landweber

Victor Landweber writes:

> Provides one additional zone of separation, allowing a distinction between
> zones 9 and 10.

> Either method allowed a slight distinction to be seen between zones 0 and 1.

So it would seem that exposing Tri-X at the rated 400 gives better
range, no?

Any idea why Tri-X Pan Professional in 120 size is rated at ISO 320
instead of ISO 400?

>So it would seem that exposing Tri-X at the rated 400 gives better
>range, no?

My tests demonstrated this to be the case only when Tri-X was printed with 
an enlarger that had diffuse illumination.

More germane to this mailing list: highlight separation may be similar to 
my silver-print tests when black-and-white film is scanned using a scanner 
with diffuse illumination such as the medium-format Polaroid/Microtek 
scanners. The Nikon scanners, in particular, use a collimated light source 
and should therefore provide highlight separation similar to that of a 
condenser enlarger.

-- Victor Landweber

> So it would seem that exposing Tri-X at the rated 400 gives better
> range, no?
>
> Any idea why Tri-X Pan Professional in 120 size is rated at ISO 320
> instead of ISO 400?

And sheet sizes - it's basically a different film which just happens to have
the same name

tim

* -----Original Message-----
* From: Victor Landweber [mailto:victor@landweber.com] 
* Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 6:38 PM
* To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com; Victor Landweber
* Subject: Re[2]: [Digital BW] New Tri-X: anyone seen?
* 
* 
(snip earlier)
* 
* More germane to this mailing list: highlight separation may 
* be similar to 
* my silver-print tests when black-and-white film is scanned 
* using a scanner 
* with diffuse illumination such as the medium-format Polaroid/Microtek 
* scanners. The Nikon scanners, in particular, use a collimated 
* light source 
* and should therefore provide highlight separation similar to 
* that of a 
* condenser enlarger.

Victor,

Thank you very much for turning the thread back towards the realm of digital
printing. Hopefully the other participants in the thread will do the same.

To further your enlarger light source to scanner type analogy, I think a
drum scanner is similar to a point source enlarger and can have difficulty
with grainy film. The grain can sometimes be "over resolved" giving a  very
unpleasant gritty effect in the final print. This can generally be
eliminated or reduced by in increasing the scanning aperture to increase the
area being sampled for each pixel or by reducing the scan resolution.

Martin Wesley
www.carolyn.cc/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html