B&W negative

[Actor]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
But, how different is movie Tri-X from non movie Tri-X. Is there a difference?
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is from Kodak's reply to my eMail.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
The Tri-X films sold as 35 mm still film and the Tri-X film sold as motion picture film (EASTMAN TRI-X Reversal Film 7278 ) are two different products. They are not the same film packaged for different applications.

Both films, however are similar in that they are both black and white negative working films. If either film is processed through a black and white developer followed by a fixer bath, a negative image would be obtained. The Tri-X motion picture film is sold as a "black and white reversal" film because it is primarily processed through a black and white reversal process. It is the reversal process that produces a positive image from the negative working film. The black and white reversal process utilizes a special bleach that directly dissolves the negative silver image that is produced by the first developer. This film then continues through the process after a rexposure step (to expose the remaining silver halide (originally unexposed in the film) and through a second developer to yielding a developed positive image. Several other processing solutions are also utilized in the process sequence.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

[mattias]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's different when you're shooting a model. She can go through a whole series of poses while the N value remains the same. In that situation I'd shoot a whole roll.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

ah, i always shoot people in black and white and landscapes in color. ;-)

/matt

[Nigel]

Pushing ans pulling are used in the Zone System.

But, they are not the entire Zone System.

Good Luck

[Actor]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Pushing ans pulling are used in the Zone System.

But, they are not the entire Zone System.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
True.

[mattias]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I shoot one frame per roll.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, you're probably joking, but why don't you shoot several frames of the same subject in the same light while you're at it? ;-)

/matt

[wahiba]

Thanks for that bit from Kodak.

Maybe I am being cynical but while they confirmed them as different products, they do not state the material difference. I would assume possibly a thicker layer.

But, as the reversal film developed fine as a negative, and negative film can be reversed, I am still curious about the real difference, technically.

Anyhow it works, that is really all that matters. i am not one for getting into pedantry.

[TA152]

Useful linx:?

PLUS-X

GENERAL
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/pr.../bw/7276.shtml

TECHNICAL DATA
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/pr...tech7276.shtml


TRI-X

GENERAL
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/pr.../bw/7278.shtml

TECHNICAL DATA
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/pr...tech7278.shtml

[Actor]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">&lt;font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt;
I am still curious about the real difference, technically.
&lt;/font&gt;</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
My guess, and it's just a guess, is that there are slight variations in the proportions of the components of the emulsions. I.e., they "tweak" the recipe for maximum performance under the expected processing.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 18, 2002 02:35 AM: Message edited by: Actor ]</font>

[Actor]

Bump