home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!seismo!darwin.sura.net!gatech!rpi!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!cujo!cc.curtin.edu.au!zrepachol
- From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
- Newsgroups: rec.photo
- Subject: Re: B&W Film question
- Message-ID: <1993Jan25.001856.1@cc.curtin.edu.au>
- Date: 24 Jan 93 15:18:56 GMT
- References: <1993Jan23.025300.3367@netcom.com> <1993Jan23.040021.7843@walter.bellcore.com>
- Sender: news@cujo.curtin.edu.au (News Manager)
- Organization: Curtin University of Technology
- Lines: 39
-
- In article <1993Jan23.040021.7843@walter.bellcore.com>, ekim@nyquist.bellcore.com (Michael Mills 21340) writes:
- >
- > I need to buy some film for a photo class I will be taking. Can someone
- > tell me the difference between the following films:
- > tri-X ( 400 )
- First released in 1955, though its been reformulated several times. Good
- highlites, ok grain.
-
- > Plus-X ( 125 )
-
- Older than TX, beloved of portrait shooters. Good grain.
-
- > T-Max (400 & 100 )
- TMX 100, Better grain than old FX ( 32ISO ). Nice in D-76 or Rodinal, but a bit
- 'mushy' in TMAX developer.
-
- TMY 100, grain about PX, *VERY* different animal to TX. Can go to a highlite
- density of 3.5+ if over developed, hence near un-printable.
-
- The TMAX films are very fussy in processing compared to the older emulsions.
-
- The coment on TX BTW do NOT apply to tri-X pro!!
-
-
- >
- > Also on the list of equipment it says to get. Kodak Polyfiber 8 x 10
- > double weight glossy paper.
- >
- > I have seen Polyfiber (A)FB-F Glossy Double weight
- > and (B)Polyfiber FB-F Double weight. I assume that B is
- > not glossy and that I should get A. Does this make sense.
- >
-
- In the big yellow paper world, F -> glossy. Seems like different labeling of
- same paper.
-
- Why do they want to inflict you with FB, rather than RC paper?
-
- ~Paul
-