andym911 Posted August 26, 2012 Share #21 Posted August 26, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Keith rated at 320 and Developed in HC 110 at dilution B for 5,30 mins 20degrees. best andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 26, 2012 Posted August 26, 2012 Hi andym911, Take a look here Should I wean myself off Tri-X now?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andym911 Posted August 26, 2012 Share #22 Posted August 26, 2012 keith I took your image and just dropped the contrast a bit..maybe this is a bit more like what you are after? best andy Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/186247-should-i-wean-myself-off-tri-x-now/?do=findComment&comment=2096203'>More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted August 26, 2012 Share #23 Posted August 26, 2012 Thanks Andy. Actually, it was a very bright and sunny day (very much a rarity this year in England) so it was a contrasty scene for this particular shot. My experiment was to see how Tri-X @ ISO 200 in Rodinal compared with Tri-X @ ISO 400 in Ilfosol 3 in terms of contrast, as it is often mooted that using half box speed results in negs that are better for scanning. (I know, I know - one should only change one variable at a time but I had run out of Ilfosol...) PS - apologies to the OP for thread-hijack! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted August 26, 2012 Share #24 Posted August 26, 2012 Why wean yourself off now? It makes sense to get to know some alternatives, but I've been doing that for years. That way when one film goes you can switch seamlessly. If TriX goes I will be sad, but I will not sulk over it. There's too much fun to be had shooting with other materials and, invariably, we are surprised to find that less changed than we expected. Hp5+ Foma 400 Delta 400 Messing around with a few different devs and films will see every TriX devotee find something to get excited about. If not, the problem lies a wee bit closer to home! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted October 25, 2012 Share #25 Posted October 25, 2012 fridge is full of it...shot some at the weekend on the IIIf... here a couple ...in HC 110 as usual.. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/186247-should-i-wean-myself-off-tri-x-now/?do=findComment&comment=2150794'>More sharing options...
andym911 Posted October 25, 2012 Share #26 Posted October 25, 2012 no.2 Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/186247-should-i-wean-myself-off-tri-x-now/?do=findComment&comment=2150795'>More sharing options...
Guest MarcRF Posted October 25, 2012 Share #27 Posted October 25, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) kentmere is said to be ilford quality film but is very affordable (under 3€ per roll) with ASA 100 and 400 available. seems like a great deal for me. testing it at the moment, developed a roll just about an hour ago otherwise I like to shoot different ASAs so I use ilfords 50, 125, 400 pan-f, fp4, hp5 and i am very happy with the results Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted October 25, 2012 Share #28 Posted October 25, 2012 It seems silly to quit using something you like only because you fear it might not be around later. There are a lot of products that we become fond of only to see them disappear for whatever reason (clothing, cars, drinks, food, for example.) But life goes on and we adjust to something else when the time comes. Just as a reminder, film brands have come and gone long before digital ever existed. It's been the same old story all along: "my favorite film is being discontinued! I'm buying 1000 rolls and freezing it!" And as Pico mentioned, Tri-X has gone through several iterations in the past (and Tri-X users screamed about that, too.) Buy the film you like now and use it now. An asteroid could come tomorrow and wipe you off the face of the earth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dtoh Posted October 27, 2012 Share #29 Posted October 27, 2012 I always consider it a privilege for me to stumble upon film photography, and i am thankful to be in possession to some of my leica gears, and also tri x amongst other films. I will likely continue shooting till either my love for photography, or my eye sight, or film production runs out. Shouldnt wean off for the fear of not having it tomo. Regards, daryl http://www.dtohphoto.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 28, 2012 Share #30 Posted October 28, 2012 They were "thinking big" when they decided to throw aside the profitable parts of their business (film) in favor of an "entrepreneurial venture" in printers (LOL). Kodak has certainly tried a lot of approaches the past 30+ years and most have not panned out too well. But through all of that they never decided to throw aside their film business. What they failed to do is adapt to changing circumstances for film... something they saw coming. As a matter of fact various regimes of Kodak management have taken heat for being too wedded to film and the large and easy profits they generated. The declining profits in their film business was something they were desperately trying to replace... with something. They seem to have utterly failed unless the printing end works out. My guess is that Tri-X will be one of the last films standing. Its look is iconic and it is probably the easiest emulsion for them to make. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler_101 Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share #31 Posted October 28, 2012 Kodak has certainly tried a lot of approaches the past 30+ years and most have not panned out too well. But through all of that they never decided to throw aside their film business. What they failed to do is adapt to changing circumstances for film... something they saw coming. As a matter of fact various regimes of Kodak management have taken heat for being too wedded to film and the large and easy profits they generated. The declining profits in their film business was something they were desperately trying to replace... with something. They seem to have utterly failed unless the printing end works out. My guess is that Tri-X will be one of the last films standing. Its look is iconic and it is probably the easiest emulsion for them to make. Hi Alan, I'm sure you are articulating the problems at Kodak more precisely than I: they failed to adapt film production to the constraints (and opportunities) of the emerging digital age film-market. What you have to say about management being criticized for innate conservatism is fascinating. There must have been quite a tussle within the company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 28, 2012 Share #32 Posted October 28, 2012 Hi Alan, I'm sure you are articulating the problems at Kodak more precisely than I: they failed to adapt film production to the constraints (and opportunities) of the emerging digital age film-market. What you have to say about management being criticized for innate conservatism is fascinating. There must have been quite a tussle within the company. I am not sure what you mean as opportunities in the digital age film market. Kodak was quite a large company and had no desire to become a much smaller one. They never came up with a viable strategy to maintain their size in a shrinking film market. They let down their stock holders. Many will say that despite developing all kinds of digital photo technology they never really pulled it all together into a profitable venture. Keep in mind that Rochester NY is very far from Silicon Valley in distance and mind set. They were not the kind of nimble company that could see potential in something like Instagram despite having programers who could have easily made such a product in no time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler_101 Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share #33 Posted October 28, 2012 I am not sure what you mean as opportunities in the digital age film market. Kodak was quite a large company and had no desire to become a much smaller one. They never came up with a viable strategy to maintain their size in a shrinking film market. They let down their stock holders. I meant that film has become a niche market not a mass market. The niches must be identified and production oriented accordingly. As far as the stock holders are concerned, any resolution would have been better than what has happened. In other words, it is sometimes better to admit that the company must become smaller than to continue on as if the future is bright and then see the entire enterprise collapse. I like Kodak and derive no schadenfreude from what has happened; quite the opposite. My beef is with Wall Street for putting companies under the pressure that they are wont to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 28, 2012 Share #34 Posted October 28, 2012 I don't think Kodak ever had the thought of ultimately becoming a relatively small niche film company whether that could be profitable or not. Consider they would have needed to make new investments in a smaller film manufacturing facility to accomplish that. As for their investors, they hung with them pretty long through numerous re-organizational plans that didn't pan out. It looks like it might have actually been Wall Street back in 1995-2001 that wanted Kodak to concentrate on the film business and not move so hard into digital. This article tries to figure out what went wrong. And some of the readers' comments are quite interesting too. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/what-killed-kodak/250925/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoshawnuff Posted October 28, 2012 Share #35 Posted October 28, 2012 If/when Kodak sells their plants and formulas the only thing ill have to worry about is the fact that I won't be able to buy Arista Premium (rebranded Tri x) for $2.90 a roll. I'm confident someone will buy the Kodak patents and film production plants, but am equally confident that the new owner will not be giving freestyle TriX to rebrand and sell for cheap...therefore I'm stocking up on 100ft and 36exp Arista Premium while its still around. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
remik Posted October 30, 2012 Share #36 Posted October 30, 2012 All this talk of weaning off Tri-X, and I've just processed my first ever roll of the stuff.... Remi Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/186247-should-i-wean-myself-off-tri-x-now/?do=findComment&comment=2154194'>More sharing options...
H. James Wolf Posted October 30, 2012 Share #37 Posted October 30, 2012 I'm in the same boat as Andy. I've shot Tri-X since the late 60s, but also HP-5 and Neopan 400. The temptation is to switch to either Foma or Ilford - I already use their paper. Why should I continue to support a company that is, little by little, abandoning its customers? Wouldn't it be better to support a company that still offers a full line of b&w materials? I suspect that's what I'll be doing in the next couple of weeks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
traveler_101 Posted October 31, 2012 Author Share #38 Posted October 31, 2012 I'm in the same boat as Andy. I've shot Tri-X since the late 60s, but also HP-5 and Neopan 400. The temptation is to switch to either Foma or Ilford - I already use their paper. Why should I continue to support a company that is, little by little, abandoning its customers? Wouldn't it be better to support a company that still offers a full line of b&w materials? I suspect that's what I'll be doing in the next couple of weeks. I am curious about your observations on alternatives to Tri-X then. Is HP-5 as good/better than modern Tri-X? Also since you mention Foma, have you ever tried Fomapan 400? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted November 6, 2012 Share #39 Posted November 6, 2012 And if you're really concerned, then buy a bunch and stick it in the freezer. B&W fil should last for a very long time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted November 7, 2012 Share #40 Posted November 7, 2012 That brings up another question. I just broke open a 100' roll of Tri-X. Two years expired (it's been in the freezer for four years). Now that it's in the loader, and defrosted, how long do I have before I need to be concerned? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.