Kodak Tri-X Film
Tri-X has been the photojournalist's choice for a long time. Its characteristics are high speed (ASA 400), good tonal range, well defined yet not unpleasant grain, and good response to different combinations of exposure and processing methods. It's extremely versatile. I'm sure Martin has shot TONS of the stuff in his PJ days, right Martin?
It has been many, many years since I shot Tri-X and developed my film at home in my makeshift photo lab (in my parents' bathroom). I recently decided to shoot a few rolls to re-acquaint myself with this classic film. I thought it would go well with my vintage Soviet-made rangefinder cameras. After having gone digital for the last few years, I still enjoy shooting film. I'm pleasantly surprised by my latest results. In my opinion, the look and feel are not easily reproduced with digital equipment.
Read more about it here:
Kodak Tri-X Page
Warren
It has been many, many years since I shot Tri-X and developed my film at home in my makeshift photo lab (in my parents' bathroom). I recently decided to shoot a few rolls to re-acquaint myself with this classic film. I thought it would go well with my vintage Soviet-made rangefinder cameras. After having gone digital for the last few years, I still enjoy shooting film. I'm pleasantly surprised by my latest results. In my opinion, the look and feel are not easily reproduced with digital equipment.
Read more about it here:
Kodak Tri-X Page
Warren
posted by Warren T. at 11:49 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Did you make a print or is this from a scanned neg? My experience is shooting under uncontrolled lighting situations is that dodging and burning is required when making a print. With Photoshop you can do it digitally. Scratches and dust spots can be taken out. Some photographers claim that the controls using Photoshop are superior to traditional methods.
My latest thing is shooting Ilford HP5 and Kodak HC-110 developer. I'm also started doing my own printing with an enlarger. I've tried film scanners (not high end ones) and my experience is there is a sharpness loss due to scanning. The image can be sharpened in Photoshop but it's not the same as Photoshop is manipulating pixels.
Martin, I think you're referring to my previous picture (the girl). I scanned the negative, and in my haste to publish it to this new site, I decided to leave the scratches and other imperfections in the scan. I'm one of those photographers who believes that the controls available in the digital darkroom are superior to traditional methods. Well, at the very least, they are much more convenient than before, but no less difficult to do well. I routinely do minor corrections in Photoshop, but I still have a lot to learn. I agree, scanning negatives will always require sharpening in Photoshop, but I think if done correctly, the results are very good. Hey, I'd love to see some of your current work! Post it!
Warren
Post a Comment