In article <5042k1$btv@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, wings@primenet.com says...
>d_ruether@hotmail.com (Bob Neuman) wrote:
>>In article <322491F8.8DF@earthlink.net>, savagegibson@earthlink.net says...

>>>Probably for the same reason that they don't sell it in bulk rolls. As
>>>you can imagine, it is very sensitive to even the slightest light
>>>leaks.

>>Hmmm, for a film with a true (shadow-based) ASA of about 650-800,
>>I don't think that there should be much problem with TMZ, with
>>reasonable care. Heck, I bulk-load Tri-X all the time, and use
>>it at a true speed of 800 (shadow-based) with Acufine developer
>>without problems. The speed of TMZ is vastly over-rated, I think.
>>There is a difference between useable density on a negative, and
>>good tonal range (with real shadow detail). Most any 400-speed
>>film can be used at 1600-2000 with loss of quality, as can TMZ.
>>(Tri-X can even look good at 1600, if you are into water-bathing.)
>>Hope This Helps

>Tri-X is not a 400 speed film. It is a 250 speed. TMZ has very close
>to 2 full stops greater response ( ei 1000 vs ei 250 ).
>When used with a deep red filter, TMZ has 3 - stops over Tri-X.
>I used Tri-X for over 20 years before switching, so I should know!
>Also, I should point out, TMZ is available in 100 ft. bulk loads.

Hmmm, I have been using Tri-X for over 35 years (;-]), and I find it
is fully ASA 400 in D-76, and fully, no-foolin' ASA 800 in Acufine
(full-range prints with good shadow and highlight detail, and good
blacks on most grade 2 papers, using a condenser enlarger). With
high-quality (good grain and sharpness characteristics) processing
of TMZ, the most I have been able to get out of it (with risky
printing density, and some loss of shadow detail) is about 1000.
In other words, MAYBE a 1/3rd stop advantage over Tri-X, with risks,
and some shadow area problems. If you throw quality concerns out the
window, a reasonable tonal range can be had at slightly higher speeds,
but the cost in grain and sharpness is excessive for me, unless I just
plain need the speed at any cost. If you throw the last remnants of
normal tonal range out the window, too, then useable (but thoroughly
low-quality) negatives can be produced at very high speeds. But the
same is true of Tri-X at only about 1/3rd stop less speed - big deal.
It is good to know that bulk TMZ is available - makes it possibly
cheaper for experimenting with (which is what it is good for, some
sports uses excepted, IM[NS]HO).
Hope This Helps