Re: T-Max 400 revisited

George L Smyth (GLSmyth@ari.net)
Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:59:52 -0500

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: SCHRAMMR@WLSVAX.WVNET.EDU: "Mordencage"
Previous message: Joseph O'Neil: "Re: T-Max 400 revisited"
Maybe in reply to: SCHRAMMR@WLSVAX.WVNET.EDU: "T-Max 400 revisited"

Joseph O'Neil wrote:
>
> At 08:53 25/01/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >Peter Marshall wrote:
> >> Actually I think the main problem with T-Max is that for some reason
> >> people try to develop it with T-Max developers.
>
> >You may wish to look at the article "T-Max Films -- What Rochester Forgot to
> >Tell Us" on my Web page. Good reading.
>
> I read that web page quite soem time ago, and it was quite good.
> I had given up on Tmax films untill I read that article. I then used Xtol
> (which I consider to be basically D76 on steriods) and had some good
> results.

Glad you had a chance to stop by. I've added several articles since.

I've had excellent results from Xtol, which has replaced D76 for me. I must
admit that I look to highlight details as more important than shadow details
(not a popular notion, I believe), but I think that Xtol does rather well.

george

-- 
 Handmade Photographic Images     
  http://www2.ari.net/glsmyth/

Next message: SCHRAMMR@WLSVAX.WVNET.EDU: "Mordencage"
Previous message: Joseph O'Neil: "Re: T-Max 400 revisited"
Maybe in reply to: SCHRAMMR@WLSVAX.WVNET.EDU: "T-Max 400 revisited"