ISO1600 Comparison

Tyndall Bruce

A
Tyndall Bruce

  • 0
  • 0
  • 22
TEXTURES

A
TEXTURES

  • 4
  • 0
  • 47
Small Craft Club

A
Small Craft Club

  • 2
  • 0
  • 46
RED FILTER

A
RED FILTER

  • 1
  • 0
  • 37
The Small Craft Club

A
The Small Craft Club

  • 3
  • 0
  • 43

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,902
Messages
2,782,769
Members
99,742
Latest member
stephenswood
Recent bookmarks
2

Which one is Tri-X @1600

  • Top pic

    Votes: 10 43.5%
  • Bottom pic

    Votes: 13 56.5%

  • Total voters
    23

mnemosyne

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
759
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
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.

What are these certain "holy assumptions" you are refering to? I do not see anything in this test that would come as a surprise to those people who have ever used both films. Delta 3200 is indeed grainier than Tri-X when shot and developed at the same speed. Delta 3200's raison d'être is not to minimize grain when shooting in low light. The purpose of this film is to give low light shooting (pushing) capabilities and at the same time keeping contrast within reasonable limits, something which is difficult to achieve when pushing ISO400 class film two stops or more
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom