In article <445cek$dca@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU>, keivom@rintintin.Colorado.EDU says...
>In article <444me2$q72@i-2000.com>, Lou Kipnis wrote:
>>d_ruether@hotmail.com (Bob Neuman) wrote:
>>>In article <43vp2m$hlo@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, kwades@aol.com says...
>>>>What is the difference anyway? Dumb question, sorry...
>>>Not a dumb question, but many out there will think my answer is
>>>pretty dumb.... If you are refering to T-Max 400 compared with Tri-x
(here a bad edit was made - refer to the original Bob Neuman post above)
>>>previous accurate and conservative photo materials ratings. (BTW,
>>>if you do not need to depend on getting results, TMX at 40 in D-76
>>>and 80 in Accufine can be VERY nice.)
>>>Hope this helps.
>just wondering: how do you process tmax 400 shot at 40, or 80? what >are the times for this? also, why do you shoot it at such a slow >speed? what is the advantage? i heard overexposing film is bad.

Lou Kipnis, in a nearby post, explains this very well - and another
poster points out that I was referring to T-Max 100 (TMX) at the end
of my post. Just an addition: Years ago, after a few years of push-
processing Panatomic-X for a graphic 5-stop range in my photos, I
rebelled against my own style, and tried for a very long range instead.
Tri-X exposed at 25 (!) gave me the shadow detail I was after, but no
conventional developer would hold the rest of the range without
problems. Just then, an article on POTA developer caught my eye, as it
'twere, and "success" was at hand. Phenedone and sodium sulfite became the brew to produce negatives that could hold maybe 15-20 stops of subject information on a (barely) printable negative. Imagine being able to photograph on a sunny street, and have the interiors of buildings show nicely through the windows - or photograph in a woods, and have the sun show in the sky at the same time that you can see the detail in the dark tree trunks! (All without print manipulations!) The resulting tiny prints (Low brilliance and contrast made for photos of low graphic content, so larger prints "fell apart" visually - the tiny
prints retained the beautiful tonal relationships I was after.) became
a show (and book) called "Soft Images" that traveled to a couple of dozen museums in the 1970's. The point is: you can adjust the tonal range (contrast and brilliance) of your images by altering the exposure
and development of the film (and, to some extent, the paper). (Though I
find that many of the newer photo products [T-Max 400 especially] do
not have the inherent ability to render much shadow information, and
they do not reward very well efforts to extend their shadow information by changes in exposure and development.)
Hope this helps.