tobey bilek Posted February 20, 2013 Share #61 Posted February 20, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Try some HP5 from Ilford. If you like it or are willing to substitute, you are set. If not, buy a 5 year supply, no more. Freeze it. Freezing will maintain the emulsion. Cosmic radiation will fog it eventually. Unless you have a miles deep salt mine, there is no way to protect it from cosmic. 5 feet of lead works also. You need to balance having a supply against loss and the possibility someone will purchase Kodak film manufacturing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 20, 2013 Posted February 20, 2013 Hi tobey bilek, Take a look here Should I wean myself off Tri-X now?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
roguewave Posted February 20, 2013 Share #62 Posted February 20, 2013 Trix 400 is simply the best B&W film ever! Long may it reign ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted February 21, 2013 Share #63 Posted February 21, 2013 ben -- true even as a film you scan? i agree with you completely in regard to using tri-x completely in an analog work flow from camera to printing from the negative. i think, and i really mean think rather than know or believe deeply, that when scanning into the computer a flatter less contrasty film is better. it is kind of what people are writing about the mm, that its files at the first pass are flat and then you add contrast etc to taste in pp. going along those lines of thought, i find hp5+ the better 400 iso bw film. i am interested in hearing your and other views on this. along with whether the yankees or the mets finish with the better record and if you were going to make the bet have an even book what's the right spread? :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted February 21, 2013 Share #64 Posted February 21, 2013 ben -- true even as a film you scan? i agree with you completely in regard to using tri-x completely in an analog work flow from camera to printing from the negative. i think, and i really mean think rather than know or believe deeply, that when scanning into the computer a flatter less contrasty film is better. it is kind of what people are writing about the mm, that its files at the first pass are flat and then you add contrast etc to taste in pp. going along those lines of thought, i find hp5+ the better 400 iso bw film. i am interested in hearing your and other views on this. along with whether the yankees or the mets finish with the better record and if you were going to make the bet have an even book what's the right spread? :-) It all comes down to the look & vision you want with the image. The reason I sold my Nikon Scanner for 35mm film is that it renders VERY high contrast files. They can look good, but at the cost of enormous loss of fine details. My work flow is to make several different scans of the same negative so that I can have a library of scans that I can use as a "layer" in photoshop. Film has a marvelous capacity to store an amazing amount of detail. I grew up on Tri X 400 and I use it often at night. I can push up to 6400 iso with no real issues. The most important element about Tri X 400 is that it's greatest strength is in the story telling, not in rendering a mirror of reality. It's the most fabulous night film for those that want a look of noir. I hate clean films. They are the worse kind of lies & falsehoods. I want to show what my dreams are, not what's in the mirror. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted February 21, 2013 Share #65 Posted February 21, 2013 btw, what do use to scan the negatives? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted February 22, 2013 Share #66 Posted February 22, 2013 An Epson V700. It's a very fine tool, once you know how to use it and what it is you have in your mind's eye. I use VueSan software because it lets me do exactly what I what. You get to control each scan in many different ways. It does require patience, but most things of excellence do. The Nikon is great for fast & dirty work, but it obliterates too much fine detail and narrows the tonal range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted February 23, 2013 Share #67 Posted February 23, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks. I am looking to buy a scanner and thinking about new plustek and others No MF at the moment. But lots of old slides and negatives along with new output from M4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted February 23, 2013 Share #68 Posted February 23, 2013 It all comes down to the look & vision you want with the image. The reason I sold my Nikon Scanner for 35mm film is that it renders VERY high contrast files. They can look good, but at the cost of enormous loss of fine details. My work flow is to make several different scans of the same negative so that I can have a library of scans that I can use as a "layer" in photoshop. Film has a marvelous capacity to store an amazing amount of detail. I grew up on Tri X 400 and I use it often at night. I can push up to 6400 iso with no real issues. The most important element about Tri X 400 is that it's greatest strength is in the story telling, not in rendering a mirror of reality. It's the most fabulous night film for those that want a look of noir. I hate clean films. They are the worse kind of lies & falsehoods. I want to show what my dreams are, not what's in the mirror. well said! I think highly of trix too. The best film simply!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.