400 speed films - you say you can see the difference?

[Rob F.]

Oops, since it's 400-speed I should say TMY, not TMX. I missed the

second set of pictures when I responded, but I think I'll let my

answer stand.

[bong]

Andy, you've made your point. I do see a difference in tonality

between the two images.<p>

I'd say the left hand side was made with the modern technology film

because it's contrastier. Not to impugn your development process,

Andy, but it is easier to get a higher CI with TMY than with Tri-X.

On the other hand, TMY has a higher shoulder than Tri-X which implies

that the right hand image with more detail in the highlights, the one

taken with the modern technology film... Ahhh heck, spill it, Andy!

[andy_piper2]

It's a hectic night here at the OK corral - the Olympic Torch passed

through Denver today and the newspaper is hoppin' - so I'll reserve my

comments til later.

 

<p>

 

To end the tension - the envelope please......

 

<p>

 

...and the film on the left is ye olde Tri-X, the film on the right is

Delta 400 new.

 

<p>

 

I'll get back to you.

[andy_piper2]

So...

 

<p>

 

I see differences - I don't see what I would call "dramatic"

differences.

 

<p>

 

I also don't see some of the things I expected. For example, the Delta

film (right) actually does a slightly BETTER job of separating the

highlights (light buildings in the background, bright parts of the

trucks headlights, e.g.) And the Tri-X is not substantially grainier

than the Delta, although the grain (and the edges of details) are a

little mushier (see the license plate lettering and edges around the

truck's lights).

 

<p>

 

I think the slight underexposure (640 - if it WAS underexposure: real

ISOs vary so much depending on the meter used, technique, etc.) helped

both films - keeping grain down and keeping the highlights off the

shoulder and on the 'straight-line' part of the H&D curve.

 

<p>

 

If I wanted maximum sharpness I would go with the Delta 400 - but if I

ran short of film, I'd be perfectly comfortable picking up some Tri-X

at the local Walgreen's (American chain of chemist's shops, for the

Manxians and other global folks).

[craig_smith5]

Andy,why did you take EXACTLY the same photo,with the same lens,from

EXACTLY the same position(see shadow)both within a matter of seconds

of each other,but with different film????

 

<p>

 

I think someone is telling porky-pies.I suspect Phill may be right.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

For me there´s no diference, well no a substantial one.

[paul_chefurka1]

What developers did you use?

[andy_piper2]

"Why take the exact same picture from the exact same place with two

different films?"

 

<p>

 

Uhh...Craig. In order to see how the films compared (which is the whole

point of this post). It wouldn't have meant anything to move around and

take different shots and then say "Holy Cow, the truck sure looks

sharper in the Tri-X picture - of course it's twice as BIG in the Tri-X

picture - but heyyy....!"

 

<p>

 

It's called the scientific method - change only one variable at a time

(the film), and keep everything else constant (viewpoint, shutter

speed, aperture, lens, etc.)

 

<p>

 

 

Paul: "Technique: Both films exposed the same, at 640 ISO, and

processed in Ilford DDX for Ilford's recommended NORMAL (ISO 400)

processing time for that film." Normal times are 9 minutes for Delta 40

and 8 minutes for Tri-X @ 20/68 degrees C/F.

[craig_smith5]

OK Andy,I'm sorry,I was only asking.

[andy_piper2]

Craig: That's OK - I just came in from shooting for two hours at 20

degrees and was cold and grumpy.... 8^).

[rush]

There seems to be more grain in the t-max emulsion... Tri-X by nature should have <i>more</i> grain that t-max. What is the reason for that. I have worked with both, and I have shot around 50 rolls of t-max and 25 rolls of tri-x in 135 size in the past 3 months (i shoot mostly 120 now), and I always get a tighter grain strusture off the t-max, especially in x-tol. It is the nature of the film grain. Is there somthing wrong with my thinking here. Also, the left film has the greater contrast of t-max, but you say it is tri-x? I dunno, but I would like to know the whole process down to the paper exposure (or were these neg scans?), and if there were any level adjustments, etc, in photoshop.