Originally Posted by bluesun267
I'm curious to hear yours (and other 5222 shooters) opinions of the difference between Tri-X and Double-X. Disclosure: I have a sneaking suspicion they are the same emulsion.
I find them to be different. Double XX is far grainier in my use, compared to Tri-X. I regularly push Double XX to ISO 1600, with OK results, never had great results pushing Tri-X.
I like using Double XX with my vintage glass, lenses made from about 1949 to 1975. And I slap a yellow filter on each lens. I find the lower contrast of Double XX to be more pleasing to my eye than Tri-X, and I find I like the way Double XX renders mid-tones.
Completely subjective I'll admit.