J&C 400 vs. TXP320 in a foot race.

The Rebel Bear

H
The Rebel Bear

  • 0
  • 2
  • 116
Great Sand Dunes NP

A
Great Sand Dunes NP

  • 5
  • 2
  • 188
San Jose Museum of Art

A
San Jose Museum of Art

  • 0
  • 0
  • 125
San Jose Museum of Art

A
San Jose Museum of Art

  • 1
  • 0
  • 130

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
178,612
Messages
2,456,861
Members
94,588
Latest member
perfectiontips
Recent bookmarks
0

Sjixxxy

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
433
Location
Zenith City,
Shooter
8x10 Format
This all refers to 4x5 sizes.

Since I can be a cheap bastard, I love Diafine, and have been using it with Tri-x For a while with great results. Then the cheap bastard in me sees J&C 400 for about half the cos of Tri-Xt and gets excited, but can find no reference to anyone ever using it in Diafine. My J&C Classic 400 arrived today, so I ran my own little test. Here are my results.

Since I don't own a densitometer, or have a darkroom easily avaiable, I ran my test by shooting off a scene at 400, 800 & 1600 on each film, and then scanned them on my Epson 2450 using Vuescan with all auto balanceing turned off so that each negative got the same amount of exposure. Then compared that image, and one done with just levels applied in Photoshop to the image and eyeballed it from there. The top images in each exaplme JPG is the strait scan, and the bottom are after just a simple levels. Scene was incident metered outside with a Luna Pro SBC. Dark interior that I included in the scene metered around 4 stops less then the outdoors.

Example images; 400 ISO, 800 ISO, 1600 ISO

My own observations;

· Shooting at 400, the TXP320 seems a little faster, but the J&C image seems to be better with a minor tonality issue that I've always had with the tri-x. One comparison sheet isn't much though, and I'll have to play with this some more. Maybe have to rate it a hair slower to get the shadow detail that I'm used to.

· Stick with tri-x when going beyond 400. Tri-x @ 1600 was still a decent negative, the j&c @ 1600 was thin enough that holding it up to the light in my basement after processing had it do that thin negative trick where it looks like a positive. The tri-x @ 800 seems somewhat close to J&C @ 400.
 

mark

Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2003
Messages
5,686
At 400 I like the look of the J&C. More pop to the sky and bricks where TriX was a bit flat. Interesting. I had been considering Classic 400.
 
OP
OP
Sjixxxy

Sjixxxy

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
433
Location
Zenith City,
Shooter
8x10 Format
Went out and tried the two side by side again, and got the same results. The tri-x negatives where of a good density, and the J&C looked a little thin. But after processing I still think the J&C has better tones and much more pop to it. I think I'll try lowering it down to 200 and see what happens.
 

Attachments

  • trix_dogs.jpg
    trix_dogs.jpg
    55.8 KB · Views: 116
  • j&c_dogs.jpeg
    j&c_dogs.jpeg
    65.8 KB · Views: 117
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
Top Bottom