Camera Talk

Same day as the other roll, but this with Tri-X Pan 320 expired in 1984 shot as ASA 50, I think Graham was right to start the counting from ASA 200 and one more stop down won't hurt. What do you think?







Also it went out more grainy than the other roll.
One question, if its shot as ASA 50 being ASA 320, the develop times should be as ASA 320 or 50? I say this because this time at the lab I wrote ASA 320 as the guys over there maybe don't know this film and its not written in the paper roll.

Thank you for watching.

Alex, using a lower ASA (iso) setting than the manufacturers suggested speed in order to compensate for the film ageing presumes that development will be "normal" as recommended for the film when fresh. You could also increase the development time, using the manufacturers recommended ASA, in order to compensate for ageing, but you should not do both. Tri-X Professional 120 (ASA 320) has much greater exposure latitude than Tri-X 135 (ASA 400) anyway, therefore I recommend that you use the 'speed shift" method but by no more than half, i.e 160 as a starting point and then adjust according to the development time used by your laboratory. The exposures of frames 2 & 3 above appear to be correct.

The negatives would tell the whole story, but as Graham said above, at least 2 and 3 look quite well; to me it seems that all were acceptable.

Much improved, Alex. When I'm shooting redscale, it's usually at ISO 25, but I tell the lab to process at 400.

PF

Thank you all

I will try to shoot at ASA40 next time Graham and see how it goes.
Julio, negatives are like the photos, no the whole tones, much better than the first try but still not enough, it could be than the lens cannot handle the whole tones.

alexvaras wrote:it could be than the lens cannot handle the whole tones.

Alex, the lens will not restrict the dynamic range of the exposure.