Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-20-2008, 04:03 PM   #16
Pentaxian
ChrisPlatt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Queens NYC
Posts: 4,825
It's not Tri-X, but BW400CN is a very good film, and much more economical to have processed.
Ask around and find someone who will print it on true BW paper...

Chris

05-20-2008, 04:10 PM   #17
Pentaxian
jgredline's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: LosAngeles, Ca.
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,587
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ChrisPlatt Quote
It's not Tri-X, but BW400CN is a very good film, and much more economical to have processed.
Ask around and find someone who will print it on true BW paper...

Chris
I had been using BW400CN, but after seeing the results with the tri-x film, I do not think I will go back to the BW400CN.
05-20-2008, 04:16 PM   #18
Veteran Member
borno's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: md-usa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,580
Very nice shots Javier,
when I was lucky enough to have a darkroom all I did was black and white and used plus-x pan 120 rolls and 35mm but liked the panatomic-x the best but you usually needed a tripod as it was 32 asa I think. I liked the microdol developer or d-76. I really miss the darkroom but there is no room in our little house (the omega 67c is packed away waiting for it's time)
05-20-2008, 04:29 PM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 281
Have You Called Around?

QuoteOriginally posted by jgredline Quote
I had been using BW400CN, but after seeing the results with the tri-x film, I do not think I will go back to the BW400CN.
Javier,

Have you called around to the labs in your area? I have one in the SF Bay Area that will develop my Tri-X for $3. I then scan the negs and figure out what I want printed, bring the negs back to them and they charge $0.35 per print on real B&W paper. I learned that all of the independent photo processors in my area send their B&W to this lab and then add an upcharge.
If you do some digging, you may be able to cut out the middle man in your area too. Of course, developing your own is an experience in and of itself, it is just not for me .

Russell

05-20-2008, 04:39 PM   #20
Veteran Member
Fritz's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Tillamook, OR
Posts: 1,168
QuoteOriginally posted by jgredline Quote
I had been using BW400CN, but after seeing the results with the tri-x film, I do not think I will go back to the BW400CN.
I shot a roll of the BW400CN earlier this week just to try it out. I think it turned out ok. But your pictures using the Tri-x are making me think this film might be worth a try as well. Nice shots!

So is the Tri-x that you used a 400 asa film?
05-20-2008, 07:06 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 376
Yes, Tri-X is a 400-speed B&W film. Kodak Plus-X is a 125-speed B&W film. These films have much in common (grain structure, etc.), and, generally speaking, if one likes Tri-X, one should also like Plus-X.

With regard to finding a place that will print on true B&W paper: this can be rather difficult. I have yet to find one in my area. Of the 16 rolls of film in my 'fridge, about eight are either Tri-X or Plus-X. I had searched on-line for a true photo lab--i.e. completely optical from beginning to end and true B&W paper--but the one place I tried ended up producing unsatisfactory results. He used the "right stuff," but I noticed a white glare along the bottom edge of some of my shots...quite disappointing.
05-20-2008, 11:53 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 813
Javier, the post is a little old, but there might be some leads here on B&W labs in your area: Labs in Los Angeles - Photo.net B&W Photo - Film & Processing Forum
05-20-2008, 11:53 PM   #23
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
It's not hard devving your own black and white. I'm self-taught, and I'm happy with my results.

Douglas of Sweden's got some pretty good advice.

Unfortunately, real prints, made optically, are getting harder to find, unless you get a darkroom and do it yourself. Felix68 is lucky. I know the true black-and-white labs here, and I know of only a few, they charge a fair bit, as it's quite a labour-intensive process.

Most just scan and print digitally, which can limit dynamic range.

But still, Tri-X is my favourite film, and it's a favourite of a lot of photographers. If Kodak discontinue this stuff, there's gonna be a riot. TMAX is horrid, and Fuji and Ilford don't have anything that really matches it, though they do have some excellent BW films. There's a good reason it's been around for 54 years - the same amount of time as the Fender Stratocaster - despite the fact it's now a decidely low-tech film in a digital age.

05-21-2008, 05:37 AM   #24
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
QuoteOriginally posted by jgredline Quote
I had been using BW400CN, but after seeing the results with the tri-x film, I do not think I will go back to the BW400CN.
Ilford's chromogenic film, XP2 Super, is apparently better to pring on true black and white because it lacks the orange colour mask of BW400CN - the orange mask helping BW400CN be easier to print on standard paper.

Once you get down to devving Tri-X yourself, it gets much, much cheaper than paying for C41 developing. Costs me less than a buck to do two rolls, and I'm in Australia.
05-21-2008, 06:40 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 376
This is interesting advice, lithos. I have heard similar advice about do-it-yourself developing, but I have yet to try it. The developing aspect does seem rather straightforward, but what then about printing? I tend to doubt that scanning and printing on home equipment could match the printing gear in a photo lab. Also, what about getting true B&W paper?--I tend to prefer the 4"x6" paper size, as it is dimensionally correct for the 35mm format.

Regards,
Glen
05-21-2008, 06:54 AM   #26
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
Dunno. I don't have a darkroom, so I haven't done much printing. It's another thing to learn, though, and I don't mind some of the digital prints most labs do nowadays.

Ilford's the easiest BW paper to find, Kodak having, sadly, shut down their BW paper business. There're others you might find, especially in the 'States, like Kentmere and Efke.
05-21-2008, 07:47 AM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 376
Another problem with home printing is the lack of matte paper for color (or B&W?) prints in the 4"x6" size. Epson does not make such a paper, and neither does HP. The Canon 4"x6" matte paper seems to be considered cardstock.

What a terrible situation today for film enthusiasts:

1. no real photo labs
2. hybrid processing only (virtually no optical processing, beginning to end)
3. plasticky, made-in-China home-use printers
4. scarcity of true B&W paper
5. a general sense of hostility toward films users--i.e. the "c'mon, get with the times so I don't have to be bothered processing your antiquated film things" attitude

Number 5 is perhaps the most challenging (and dismaying) of all.

Last edited by zx-m; 05-21-2008 at 08:14 AM.
05-21-2008, 09:36 AM   #28
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
Keep in mind that the average lab today is a lowest-common denominator place, concerned mostly with getting passable prints out to people who're willing to accept that certain bad images are simply "part of the photographic experience."

There's a few good home printers around, beyond the usual dye-sub, plug-the-camera-straight-into-them ones. Epson do some nice eight-ink variety ones.

The hybrid processing is part of a bigger problem, I feel, that comes from the digital environment, and that's the Dynamic Range problem.
05-21-2008, 10:22 AM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 376
I could not agree more: the problem of hybrid processing is rooted in the digital environment.
05-21-2008, 10:37 AM   #30
Veteran Member
ve2vfd's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,433
QuoteOriginally posted by lithos Quote
TMAX is horrid
So I guess I am not the only one to dislike Tmax?

I remember trying it years ago and found its contrast to be a bit "muddy" for lack of a better word...

Pat
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
film, tri
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Misc B&W - Scans of Tri-X ve2vfd Post Your Photos! 7 12-23-2009 04:32 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Film LX & MX & Glass DaddyLuna Sold Items 5 06-03-2009 02:09 PM
pentax p3n tri-x film jadams360 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 9 03-13-2009 09:45 AM
Back to B&W: BW400CN or Tri-X? troyz Pentax Film SLR Discussion 23 08-14-2008 07:55 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:52 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top