I'm Curious - T grain verses conventional Grain clearing time

[Photo Engineer]

Also sprach Zarathustra! Hmmm.

See here to see some examples in the open literature. I can only say that higher resolution is obtained as noted in the first article.

Dead Link Removed

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=c5e77fcf122522d4b8dcb475109fedea

We strive for quality imaging not quantity!

PE

 

[Q.G.]

I know EM imaging.
Too much work and not needed for SEM imaging!

 

[brucemuir]

Awesome Tim hahaha

 

[Photo Engineer]

I know EM imaging.
Too much work and not needed for SEM imaging!

See the references. Often used in both for ultra high resolution. This is very often needed when making an emulsion, or when sensitizing one. But then, maybe you know emulsion making as well.

PE

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Funny you should mention that. Coke fits right in with my little paragraph of teases. The word "Coke" to mean "cola of any kind" is a very common usage in certain parts of the U.S.A., such as the south. Everything is "a Coke," whether it is Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Mountain Dew, etc.

E.g.

Person 1: Would you like anything to drink, honey?
Person 2: Yeah, baby; gimme a Coke, please.
Person 1: What kind?
Person 2: A Diet Dr. Pepper, please.

Exactly my point.

There is a lot of Coke (tabular grain), but there is only one Coca-Cola (T-Grain)!

 

[Photo Engineer]

The problem is, which is which?

There are so many claims to both Tabular grain and T-Grain it boggles ones mind!

And it is mainly hype just as in Colas. Colas are colas, made with the same basic ingredients with tiny tweaks. (RC is a cola, Dr. Pepper is not)

PE

 

[Q.G.]

See the references. Often used in both for ultra high resolution. This is very often needed when making an emulsion, or when sensitizing one. But then, maybe you know emulsion making as well.

Unlike some, i would never claim to know everything...

 

[2F/2F]

Exactly my point.

There is a lot of Coke (tabular grain), but there is only one Coca-Cola (T-Grain)!

That is not your point at all. Your point applied to this case would mean that those who use the term Coke generically to mean cola ought not do so.

However, it is simply regional shorthand, not something deserving of a slap on the wrist.

...and the case for "t-grained" is immensely more clear than Coke, Xerox, Hoover, or Thrifty, since it actually describes a physical characteristic that all of these films share, and is not just a snazzy brand name. I can see you getting worked up about it if Kodak had named it something like "Special Maxi-Tab Emulsion" or some such junk, and everyone came to call this style of emulsion Maxi-Tab emulsions...but Kodak did not. They named it the abbreviation for "tabular-grained."

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... Colas are colas, made with the same basic ingredients with tiny tweaks. ...

And beer is beer, right?

 

[Q.G.]

And beer is beer, right?

Exactly.
Unless you think making a distinction between types of beer is an absolute must to be able to use the term "beer" to indicate something that is not lemonade, or wine, or tea, or any other thing that is not beer (and which can itself be seperated in types of lemonade, wine, tea, etc.)

 

[RalphLambrecht]

That is not your point at all. ...

I decide what's my point, not you!

 

[2F/2F]

I decide what's my point, not you!

...and you'll be wrong when you state your point sometimes, as you were when I corrected you.

Your main point all along was about what terminology should be used, not what trademarks belong to whom. What trademarks belong to whom was simply evidence that you used to bolster your point about how we ought to refer to tabular-grained films.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Beer and Coke are overall terms, so is tabular grain. Miller, Pepsi and T-Grain are the finer point of things. Not to difficult, really.

 

[2F/2F]

Beer and Coke are overall terms, so is tabular grain. Miller, Pepsi and T-Grain are the finer point of things. Not to difficult, really.

So, now Coke is an "overall term" and Pepsi is a "finer point?"

OK...

Makes me feel good to know that I have always preferred the "finer point" in this case!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...and you'll be wrong when you state your point sometimes, as you were when I corrected you.

Your main point all along was about what terminology should be used, not what trademarks belong to whom. What trademarks belong to whom was simply evidence that you used to bolster your point about how we ought to refer to tabular-grained films.

Unbelievable!

 

[erikg]

It's an honorary post so no worries

You get to attend the opening of new boxes of film.

 

[2F/2F]

Unbelievable!

...and very correct.

 

[Q.G.]

I decide what's my point, not you!

Yes, you do. But not in just your latest posts do you put your point across.

The term was used generically, to indicate a tabular grain film. To which you replied that Delta is not T-Max, which you then went on to explain as meaning that we mustn't confuse protected trade names.
The original post however never implied that Ilford uses Kodak tradenames, just that it is a film of similar grain structure.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...and very correct.

Nothing new there!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Yes, you do. But not in just your latest posts do you put your point across.

The term was used generically, to indicate a tabular grain film. To which you replied that Delta is not T-Max, which you then went on to explain as meaning that we mustn't confuse protected trade names.
The original post however never implied that Ilford uses Kodak tradenames, just that it is a film of similar grain structure.

I never said that.

For the third time, I said:

'Delta is not T-grain'

and again, it ain't!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Is Stout beer? Is Bock beer? Is Porter beer?

PE

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Is Stout beer? Is Bock beer? Is Porter beer?

PE

Ron

There are only two types of beer: good beer and better beer!

 

[lxdude]

Well, as I stated, I say tabular grain. I know usually from context when T-grain is being used generically, but why add possible confusion by using the term? If someone says T-grain I think Kodak.

We could all use "Nikon" to mean 35mm SLR, but would it be better?

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I never said that.

For the third time, I said:

'Delta is not T-grain'

and again, it ain't!

So are you saying the Delta is an epitaxial grain, and therefore not a t-grain? If so, you're missing the point PE made, which is also shown in the link to Ilford's page on silver halide crystals given earlier, that the epitaxial grains that Ilford uses are built on tabular grains.

Thus they are epitaxial and t-grain at the same time.

 

[Q.G.]

I never said that.

For the third time, I said:

'Delta is not T-grain'

and again, it ain't!

That's what i wrote, isn't it?

Noone ever implied that Delta was "T-Grain", i.e. (according to your protestations and explanations) Kodak's T-Max.
Just that it was a similar sort of film. Which it is.