Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-06-2008, 07:52 PM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,165
Tri-X is great stuff, but be sure to give good old Plus-X a go too.

It's a bloody shame Kodak dropped Verichrome Pan though, that was my favorite B&W film of them all. Tried Tmax and Delta and while they are sharp and good, they were just "dead" looking to me -- no soul at all. Tri-X and Plus-X are good, but I do miss my VP.

12-08-2008, 02:21 PM   #17
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
I have 2 rolls of TriX in the freezer since the mid-70s

My scanner is on the way and I need to figure out if I want to use DDX or Caffenol. Still have to find powder Vitamin C but I've got all the rest...
12-08-2008, 04:07 PM   #18
edl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 457
Tri-X is good stuff; I agree with other posters, while TMAX seemed sharper or more modern, it had this awful muddy look to it.

I also like Ilford HP5, perhaps more so than Tri-X.

Since we're on the film topic, what's a good film scanner for $500 or less?
12-09-2008, 03:28 AM   #19
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
I use an Epson 4490. It was AU$500 new, so that means that it would've been about US$250...

It is now, however, more or less obsolete, so you should be able to either find one much, much cheaper, or pick up a newer model for the same price.

I do wish I got a dedicated film scanner, but for some strange reason I thought I'd like something more versatile, to scan docs and prints as well. I've never scanned any docs or prints on it. Sigh. But I would like to properly get into medium format, so it's got that going for it. I can't imagine how much a (decent) dedicated film scanner that does 120 as well 135.

It's still a pretty good scanner, as long as the negs are flat - the film holder for it is incredibly shonky.

And for the love of god, get VueScan.

Oh, and I don't know if you've scanned film before, but I'm telling you this becauseI learned the hard way - IR Cleaning does NOT work on traditional silver halide films.

12-09-2008, 04:38 AM   #20
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,347
QuoteOriginally posted by Matt Miller Quote
Tri-x definitely has a look all it's own, and is fairly easy to get beautiful results with. talk about latitude. It's my favorite film in smaller formats.

Tmax400 is, in my opinion, the best film ever made for large format. I've never shot much of it in small formats, but if treated the same, I guess could yield the same amazing results. With Tmax400, you can build contrast to the moon. Tri-x will not. For silver chloride paper, or for pt/pd and other alt processes, tmax is miles ahead.
I just used to pick film after what I wanted to achieve. As ther Tri-x/Plus-x and T-max 100/400 was so different they were complementing each other well. But I also shot a lot of Fuji Neopan 400, which worked better to push to 800 and 1600. It also helped that the enighbour was a salesperson for Fuji. Is it still possible to buy Neopan?

But I admit, the Tri-x look is what gives the look I would associate with the big time era of BW film, when still all newspaper photos was shot on BW film etc.

Tried a while ago to shoot with that Ilford film that is developed in color chemistry. Anyone tried it? I was dissapointed on it.
12-09-2008, 04:42 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Sluggo's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ames, Iowa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 542
QuoteOriginally posted by lithos Quote
I use an Epson 4490. ...
It's still a pretty good scanner, as long as the negs are flat - the film holder for it is incredibly shonky.
I'll confirm both observations. Good scanner with a poorly designed 35mm film holder that can't deal with much curl. It not only won't hold a negative flat, it will sometimes pop apart before you can get the lid of the scanner closed over it.

Its 120-format tray, on the other hand, is solid, closes on a hinge with a positive snap, and holds the film much more securely.
12-09-2008, 04:57 AM   #22
Veteran Member
pasipasi's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oulu
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 533
I'm getting 10 rolls next week hopefully.
12-09-2008, 06:18 AM   #23
Veteran Member
Wombat's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 901
QuoteOriginally posted by baltochef920 Quote
Also, do any of you old-timers or young-timers (new word?) shooting B&W film still use colored filters??.
Yes, I still enjoy using them. In fact a friend of mine just gave me a set of Cokins that belonged to her late husband and I can't wait to get out and try them. In Australia our skies are so bright and flat in summer that I find it almost essential at times to have a filter to get any character at all out of it.

12-09-2008, 06:32 AM   #24
Veteran Member
Wombat's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 901
Simon, the poster on your first shot says it all - Mama mia! Just great photos - I love that stuff. Somehow b&w expresses more of the energy of life and the drama of form than colour, IMHO. And yes, I'm an old fart and I do think film still does a better job of b&w than digital. And I still prefer the sound and feel of a mechanical camera's shutter (although the K100DS isn't bad..). I'm desperate to get hold of some Tri-X but can't find any in Adelaide at all. Might have to order some over the net. After reading everyone's raves I really need to try some. Great thread.
12-09-2008, 04:10 PM   #25
Veteran Member
artobest's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Swansea, Wales
Posts: 455
QuoteOriginally posted by edl Quote
Since we're on the film topic, what's a good film scanner for $500 or less?
You could try looking for a second-hand Konica Minolta Dimage IV. I've had one for years, love it. 16-bit, up to 16x overscan, 3200dpi. Very solid and well-designed neg holder. No IR speck removal, but the Healing Brush in PS is better anyway. The scans are sometimes a little magenta-y, I always do a bit of pp afterwards.

Scanning negatives is tricky, even b&w. I usually scan as colour positive and convert later. The supplied software is good (get the updated version online though), I've tried Vuescan with it and was not impressed, scans were soft.
12-09-2008, 04:17 PM   #26
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 322
I picked up an Epson V500 Photo with holders for $250 CAD.

It's a flatbed with the extra unit in the lid for doing film, has a very effective digital ICE (usless on B&W film, but has secondary 'dust removal' feature), and a good software pack that auto-selects the film frames and lets you preview them, rotate the final file, etc. You can select which frames out of the strips you want to scan (can do 12 35mm frames per scan). Goes up into the 4000 DPI range, though I usually scan at 1200 or 2400. Pretty quick, and can do colour & BW negs, as well as slide film.

While it has colour/backlight correction, I feel that's best left for a dedicated program. Pretty happy with it, it can do 645 and 67 stuff too.
12-10-2008, 03:51 PM   #27
edl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 457
Thanks everyone for the scanning recommendations - I just ordered an Epson V500 for $159 after rebate from B&H. Free shipping!

(OP - sorry for the threadjack)
12-10-2008, 07:24 PM   #28
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,702
QuoteOriginally posted by ryan s Quote
I have 2 rolls of TriX in the freezer since the mid-70s

My scanner is on the way and I need to figure out if I want to use DDX or Caffenol. Still have to find powder Vitamin C but I've got all the rest...
I use caffenol C for all my developing. Not for any other reason then I am new at developing my own film, and why not get used to a single process before branching out?

For Vit C, I use tablets that I grind up with a morter and pestle. The recipe I use requires 1500 mg of Vit. C, so I use a pill and a half. Don't use the time release type of pills. They will not disolve fast enough.

As for a scanner, I am using the Epson V500. Very happy with it.

The only thing that I do not like about Tr-X is that it curls as it drys. It can take a few days under a stack of books to flatten.
12-11-2008, 02:32 AM   #29
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
I was surprised my local franchise chemist sells Vitamin C powder, of reasonable purity.

Remember, it's technical name is "ascorbic acid", which is thought to be the main ingredient in Kodak Xtol.

If not on the shelves, try asking at the prescriptions counter.

If not, try asking at a compounding pharmacy - they're sure to have it, to be used in the pills they make.

It's not exactly a controlled substance - after all, you can eat it - so it shouldn't be too hard to get hold of.
12-11-2008, 10:46 AM   #30
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
QuoteOriginally posted by KungPOW Quote
I use caffenol C for all my developing. Not for any other reason then I am new at developing my own film, and why not get used to a single process before branching out?

For Vit C, I use tablets that I grind up with a morter and pestle. The recipe I use requires 1500 mg of Vit. C, so I use a pill and a half. Don't use the time release type of pills. They will not disolve fast enough.
That is my conundrum. All I need is some VitC and I'm ready to develop. BUT...BUT...I'm considering using DDX for its "standard-ness" since I have no idea how this old film is going to develop. Plus I'm going to roll my own HP5 down the line.

Caffenol seems "experimental" when I am already "experimenting" with old film. Does that make sense? lol

But I don't need to spend money for DDX and stop rinse...bah...I just might end using both.

Edit: I also have 20ish bulk-rolled canisters...no idea what film it is. It's labeled "135 36exp 164 (or 64)" by my dad in the late 70s. All the rest of his films were Kodak...
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, photos, tri-x
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Black & White More Tri-X scans ve2vfd Post Your Photos! 0 12-23-2009 09:15 PM
Misc B&W - Scans of Tri-X ve2vfd Post Your Photos! 7 12-23-2009 04:32 AM
Misc From a roll of Tri-X (8 photos) pasipasi Post Your Photos! 1 12-22-2009 05:47 PM
Tri-X on the way out? Wombat Pentax Film SLR Discussion 4 02-14-2009 09:06 PM
Tri/Monopod for trip? JahJahwarrior Photographic Technique 2 05-21-2007 05:57 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:14 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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