Re: B&W developers and Tri-x ??

[Paul Stenquist]

I'm sort of out of the mainstream here in that I like Plus-X, Tri-X and 
T-Max 400. Tri-X has the high accutance that comes from the sharp edged 
grain. It can look razor shrp when processed correctly. Plus-X is very 
sharp but it's grain is so small that it has a milky smoothness that 
almost belies the true sharpness. In a sense (now don't beat me up),  
T-Max 400 with its slightly mushy grain can give you a Plus-X look when 
viewed from a normal distance. Under a loop, it's not even remotely 
similar. From ten feet, it's a pretty close match. I don't hate T-Max 
400, although I did until I tracked down some good development recipes 
on the web. When rated at 200 and processed with a non-aggressive soup 
-- like D-76 1:1 at 68 F for 11 m inutes -- it looks damn good.
Paul
On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:44 PM, William Robb wrote:

----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: B&W developers and Tri-x ??

If you recall this discussion started because Kodak recently claimed
that
their newer technology film TMAX 400, offered same image quality at 3
times the speed
as their old one PLUS-X. SAME QUALITY, but faster speed. That is not a
hypothetical,
that is the real world situation that has occurred over and over again
for decades
as film/processing technology improved both color and BW.
The discussion started because you tossed this particular straw man 
into the ring, and now your ego won't let you back down.

The problem with this is that you are basing your arguement on 
something that is just not true.
T-Max does NOT offer the same image quality as Plus-X.
It's charachteristic curve is different, the grain structure is 
different and its colour respnse is different.
About the only thing you can say is the same (perhaps) is that the 
granularity RMS of T-Max is similar.
That is one parameter out of 4 that is similar, but not identical.

In my world, this isn't even a close match, much less "the same image 
quality".

William Robb