Yeah, well, TMAX sucks anyway. My first, and last, roll of TMAX required fixing twice. And the fixer was shot afterwards. So screw it. Tri-X is just fine. But thanks for the insight, Bill. I was wondering about your TMAX statement as well.
On 7/31/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gautam Sarup" > Subject: RE: Pentax 67 > > > >> From: William Robb > >> ... > >> 6x7s that have run a lot of T-max > >> film tend to > >> show irregular frame spacing, > > > > Why especially T-max? > > Kodak may have fixed the problem, I would be very surprised if they hadn't, > actually. They may not have either. > When T-Max 120 was first marketed, they used an Estar Thick Base type of > substrate. It, combined with the paper backing made for a very hard drag on > the advance mechanism. > There was a Mamiya RB67 owners group in the USA that was threatening to sue > Kodak over the damage done to their cameras. > This was long ago, but a beaten up old bargain grade 6x7 is probably old > enough to have seen those days. My 6x7 still looks pretty spiffy. > > Kodak was technically in the good, since the base was just within ISO > standard for thickness, I believe it was the unusual rigidity of the base > that was causing the grief. > It wasn't so bad in the 6x7, because it doesn't contort the film as much in > transport. I blew out my 6x7 in the first 50 rolls of T-Max I shot. I got it > fixed and haven't used that film line since in my 6x7. > > William Robb > > > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
