Great film and great comments, Mike.
And, you can push it to 6400 if absolutely necessary.
Happy New Year to all, Mike
Mike Johnston wrote:
> I just made this post to the Leica list and thought I would repeat it
> here in case anyone's interested.
>
> --Mike
>
> >>>
> In my experience Tri-X seems to last forever. I've used MUCH older stuff
>
> with no problem.
>
> Ken Wilcox
> <<<
>
> And, in our experience, it's not much subject to heat damage, either.
> Long ago I read a test report by a photographer who was worried about
> heat. He left some Tri-X, exposed and unexposed, in his trunk in the
> Nevada desert at the peak of summer for several weeks, along with a
> recording weather thermometer. Temps got up to 180 degrees F. Neither
> the exposed roll, when developed, or the unexposed roll, once shot and
> developed, showed any adverse effects.
>
> He stopped worrying about heat after that, and so did I.
>
> One of the very great advantages of Tri-X is its toughness. It is not
> very susceptible to age, not very susceptible to heat, prints fine even
> when showing high levels of fb+f (even chemical fog), and is not
> affected by long hold times.
>
> A "hold time" is the amount of time that elapses between exposure and
> development. If you want to see something interesting, shoot a roll of
> your favorite b&w film and develop it immediately--within the first
> hour. Keep an identically-shot test roll hanging around the house for a
> year. Develop it, than make comparison prints. Your eyebrows will
> probably go up! Most films show slight hold-time deterioration within
> the first six hours after exposure, and then stabilize for relatively
> long periods before beginning a gradual process of image deterioration.
> Tri-X is relatively immune to this--it looks virtually the same whether
> processed at six hours or at six months (although it does look slightly
> better when processed immediately).
>
> To name two films of which this this not true, try developing a roll of
> Agfa 400 or Kodak T-Max P3200 at one hour, and at one year. They look
> like entirely different films. The grain gets much larger and mealy,
> sharpness is much worse, and tonality suffers. It's so bad with P3200
> that if I find on old, unprocessed roll, I don't even bother to process
> it. (P3200, more than any other film, should be purchased fresh and
> processed promptly for best results. Many photographers who have
> "tested" P3200 have come to WRONG conclusions because they're not even
> aware of what a "hold time is, and they've kept the film hanging around
> for months before using it and then wait weeks or months before
> processing it. Then they get on the internet and spout off about what
> they're "sure" it looks like. Bad test, big no-no.)
>
> This is a hidden reason why pros often get better-looking results than
> amateurs--they tend to use films closer to optimum emulsion ripeness,
> and then process immediately, no matter what film they are using. It
> helps.
>
> I'll say one thing. The more you know about film, the easier it is to
> love Tri-X.
>
> --Mike J. / _PHOTO Techniques_ magazine
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|