ISO1600 Comparison

Which one is Tri-X @1600

  • Top pic

    Votes: 10 43.5%

  • Bottom pic

    Votes: 13 56.5%
  • Total voters
    23

Richard Man

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,301
Format
Multi Format
ISO 1600 Comparison

One is of Delta 3200, one if Tri-X, both shot at ISO1600, developed using Xtol 1+2. See if you can pick up which is which. Just quick Pakon scans

 
OP
OP

Richard Man

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,301
Format
Multi Format
Frank53 said:
With a scanner like that and such small files, every film lookes the same.
Regards,
Frank
Click to expand...

I can scan them with Flextight, but seriously those two images look "the same" to you?
 

mjork

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 20, 2015
Messages
103
Location
MA, USA
Format
Multi Format
The Delta should have more shadow detail and more grain. In these scans of entirely different scenes I can't make out a difference in the former. But there is more visible grain in the top scan. So that's going to be Delta 3200.
 
  • mjork
  • Deleted
  • Reason: duplicate post
  • JensH
  • Deleted
  • Reason: doublette
OP
OP

Richard Man

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,301
Format
Multi Format
mjork said:
The Delta should have more shadow detail and more grain. In these scans of entirely different scenes I can't make out a difference in the former. But there is more visible grain in the top scan. So that's going to be Delta 3200.
Click to expand...

I will recan them with the Flextight. I didn't take them "as a test", so yes, the scene lighting are very different. Nevertheless, they look so different that and as Tri-X has certain reputations, I just got the idea to make these photos into a test. Better scans forthcoming....
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,008
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Richard Man said:
I can scan them with Flextight, but seriously those two images look "the same" to you?
Click to expand...
No - the procedure of first scanning and then throwing away almost all the scanned information in order to fit within the requirements of this site make it almost impossible to tell.
And of course the light and subject are both different.
 
  • MattKing
  • Deleted
  • Reason: duplicate

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,008
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
For clarity, there is nothing wrong with your coming to your own conclusions, because you (mostly) control the parameters of your own workflow - light, subject, film, camera, exposure, development, scanner, scanning software, post-processing, end mode of presentation.
It is, however, extremely difficult to illustrate and explain your results here or on most web based media.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,008
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
For clarity, there is nothing wrong with your coming to your own conclusions, because you (mostly) control the parameters of your own workflow - light, subject, film, camera, exposure, development, scanner, scanning software, post-processing, end mode of presentation.
It is, however, extremely difficult to illustrate and explain your results here or on most web based media.
 
OP
OP

Richard Man

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,301
Format
Multi Format
FWIW, here are the two images, scanned using the Flextight
 
OP
OP

Richard Man

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,301
Format
Multi Format
Something is weird with the site - saying there's an error, so we ended up with dup replies. Anyway, I don't expect this to be any definitive tests or anything like that. Just to see if certain "holy assumptions" hold up to scrutiny. Also interesting to see the replies. Thanks
 
Last edited:

Ste_S

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
396
Location
Birmingham, UK
Format
Multi Format
For the same speed and latitude, If you're using a hybrid workflow, is your preference in grain the only distinguishing factor between B&W films ?
 
OP
OP

Richard Man

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,301
Format
Multi Format
Ste_S said:
For the same speed and latitude, If you're using a hybrid workflow, is your preference in grain the only distinguishing factor between B&W films ?
Click to expand...

My preference is Tri-X ;-)
 

tedr1

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
940
Location
50 miles from NYC USA
Format
Multi Format
To demonstrate differences between two things there can be no other variables. In this case lighting and subject are both changed, so it is not possible to reach any conclusions. This is nuts
 

wyofilm

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
1,158
Location
Wyoming
Format
Multi Format
tedr1 said:
To demonstrate differences between two things there can be no other variables. In this case lighting and subject are both changed, so it is not possible to reach any conclusions. This is nuts
Click to expand...

+1

Looks like both films are capable of capturing a scene of two females and one male.
 
OP
OP

Richard Man

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,301
Format
Multi Format
Looks like there are two groups of answers:
  1. Are you nuts? The scenes are different, the web images are too small, you can't tell the difference!!!
  2. (3 people) Tri-X is the bottom pic.
  3. (1 person) outlier, ha ha Tri-X is the top pic
and the answer is... #2 is correct. I leave it to each person to draw their conclusion on this little test, ha ha.

Mine? If you know, you know...
 

wyofilm

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Messages
1,158
Location
Wyoming
Format
Multi Format

Yeah, but the voting above was 6 to 5 for tri-x on top.
 
OP
OP

Richard Man

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
1,301
Format
Multi Format
wyofilm said:
Yeah, but the voting above was 6 to 5 for tri-x on top.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry, I didn't see anyone voted on it, ha ha. Didn't realize the poll result is not showing automatically. How about if I changed my comment to "anyone that comments that they know, they do seem to know"?
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,008
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Now I've made it a tie!
And I think you misunderstand.
You can notice all sorts of differences between the pictures.
But the entire procedure makes it unlikely that you will be able to accurately identify which of those differences are due to the film.
It is like those huge collections of flickr gallery images that are tagged with a particular film type.
They tell you nothing reliable about that film, other than giving you a sense what people seem to like to photograph with that film and then post on flickr.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,008
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Fun is always worthwhile pursuing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…