Tri-x is sure beautiful shot at various speeds

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I'm wondering if the negs are just scanned or they print up beautifully on silver gelatin paper? Lot of the shots have beautiful tonality that look like Ralph Gibson prints.


http://emulsive.org/experiments/experiments-kodak-tri-x-400

 

[EMULSIVE]

Thanks for sharing! These were all scans (mostly Frontier) but I plan to drum scan a couple posted in this article, as well as one or two wet prints later this year.

The film has AMAZING tonality if developed with care and consideration for higher EI's; and the shadow detail you can squeeze out is frankly mind blowing - the 9th image is a great example of this.

The negatives start getting pretty thin at EI 1600+ and at 25600/51200 there's almost nothing left in many cases. Check out the "high EI shootout" articles if you get a chance, they were a lot of fun to put together.

Cheers, EM

 

[Eric Rose]

I was about to call BS on the very high ISO images until I saw you scanned the negs rather than wet printed them. I have used Rodinal at 1:100 for semi-stand with great results.

 

[kb244]

Are those scans 35mm or 120?

 

[EMULSIVE]

I was about to call BS on the very high ISO images until I saw you scanned the negs rather than wet printed them. I have used Rodinal at 1:100 for semi-stand with great results.

It'd be a bit of a mission impossible to get a print but I'd like to have a try all the same.

 

[EMULSIVE]

I was about to call BS on the very high ISO images until I saw you scanned the negs rather than wet printed them. I have used Rodinal at 1:100 for semi-stand with great results.

Per the article all of the films tested were 120 shot as 6x6.

 

[kb244]

Per the article all of the films tested were 120 shot as 6x6.

That explains the clarity at a web size given how much larger 6x6 is compared to 35mm.

Also it's not mentioned as per the article, the only mention of 120 is :

There’s almost to too much to talk about here. I shoot TRI-X in both 35mm and 120 formats and it’s one of the films I carry with me every day (I’m normally walking around with one or two rolls ready to shoot and five rolls loaded in the day pack).

no mention of what the scans were, which I assumed to be crops at first given their aspect ratio.

 

[EMULSIVE]

Hmmm, I'm guessing you're reading part two.

Have a look at the "Test Conditions" section in part one for details of film, camera and lens, etc.:http://emulsive.org/articles/black-and-white-high-ei-shootout-part-1-ei12800

I'll update part two accordingly.

 

[kb244]

Hmmm, I'm guessing you're reading part two.

Have a look at the "Test Conditions" section in part one for details of film, camera and lens, etc.:http://emulsive.org/articles/black-and-white-high-ei-shootout-part-1-ei12800

I'll update part two accordingly.

That explains that OP linked to part two, didn't think that there was a part one involved. (thought I was reading part one because it mentioned testing 12,800 in the next part).

 

[EMULSIVE]

Ah yes. Actually, OP linked to a totally separate experimentation article - nothing to do with the high EI shootout series.

Mystery solved! Thanks again.

 

[fhovie]

I have and continue to shoot TRI-X at 1600. More often than not, it is to boost up the contrast which is usually needed anyway in low light. TRI-X is my primary film for 6x6. I do shoot some in 4x5 and 8x10 because it is so versatile but I generally prefer FP4+ for 4x5 for it's tonality and it seems a little punchier without pushing it. I have never considered pushing TRI-X past 3200 (which I would prefer over ASA 3200 film) and if it has to be scanned ... well, it is not really printable then isn't it. Great info here though.