Achieving "classic Tri-X" look

Cybertrash · Dec 12, 2014

What ho all,

I've been considering shooting a series of portraits or "editorial" images for my portfolio that are more uncontrolled than my normal studio-lit work. For these images I would really like to achieve this classic "photojournalist" look for my images. I'm thinking of images by Capa, HCB, Robert Frank et. al, but also the English music photographers of the 60s and 70s (London Calling cover for example), with "bitey" grain, contrasty and sooty blacks. I'm looking for advice on how to best achieve this, mainly by film + developer choice. The obvious answer is of course Tri-X in D76 1+1, but I've been told that Tri-x was reformulated so that it does not give the same look any more. Any ideas on what I should use? I'd like to be able to shoot with the same style in both medium format and 35mm.

Roger Cole · Dec 12, 2014

There's another thread about this or a very similar question here but probably Foma 400 is about the most grain you'll get in a normal film. Another poster has had good luck with it in Rodinal. I use D76 1+1 and it does look a bit like old Tri-X though your desire for "contrasty and sooty blacks" sounds like what you are really looking for is the look of Tri-X pushed to the max and shot for midtones in dim, contrasty light. Foma would probably give you that if it's fast enough.

Michael W · Dec 12, 2014

I would use Foma 400, rate at 1600 and push process in Rodinal. I've seen it done and it has that look.

NickLimegrove · Dec 12, 2014

rather than switching away from the developer and film that you're used to, you might as well consider sticking with it (and merely adjust a few parameters in processing) and pay attention to things like lenses, lighting, and subject matter. I doubt that film and developer choice constitutes the central part of what people have gotten used to calling ›The Classic Look‹™.

mrred · Dec 12, 2014

+1

The reality is what most people call that classic look is actually the effect of over coping. That "soot" look is from too much contrast block up all the detail.

I don't shoot TriX anymore because it's not the film I got used to in the 70's. HP5+ has the same properties, to me.

What is suggested to do with Foma 400 is basically "to do everything wrong" to get your image, and you can do that with any film/developer.

So.....

Use a crappy lens, use poor lighting, push your film, really agitate your film a lot while developing.

darkosaric · Dec 12, 2014

I would say that HCB works from 60'S and 70's are not grainy at all - when I was looking at the prints in Centar Pompidou recently - they are excellent and not grainy. My prints from Fomapan 400 in Rodinal are much more grainy.

Xmas · Dec 12, 2014

mrred said:
+1

Use a crappy lens, use poor lighting, push your film, really agitate your film a lot while developing.

More exactly use a single coated lens e.g.

Single coated (SC) Cosina Voightlander (CV) /1.4 35mm
SC CV /1.4 40mm
Canon LTM 5cm /1.8
Canon LTM 3.5cm /1.8
Canon LTM 3.5cm /2
Canon LTM 2.8cm /2.8

Light for the effect you want e.g. key light across face
Shot at box speed, process normally...

Print on silver bromide...

Lighting is the 'key', the lens gives you the highlight signature, and flashes the shadows adaptively it is easier printing the shadows when the exposure for the face is good...

Cosina sold a lotta 'crappy' SC lenses.

Some of the guys you want to emulate were real pros. Would not have wanted to play foot ball against Pele or George Beat.

Noel

mdarnton · Dec 12, 2014

I keep hearing Tri-X is different. . . . I started using Tri-X in D76 in as a kid in the 50s, through my teen years in the 60s, and professionally through the 70s and beginning of the 80s, as a newspaper photographer. I still use it, and develop it as I did all those years. Take a look at my flickr stuff at http://flickr.com/mdarnton (everything there is dated and starts around 1959 or so, and there's some digital B&W and a few other films mixed in) and tell me what the difference is in the look between then and now, because I can't see it.

If there's any difference between then and now in what people are getting, it's subject matter, visual attitude, other non-camera related stuff, in my opinion, plus some consistency of objectives in printing (probably more important than anything else--stand back and look at all my flickr thumbnails as a group--different films, formats, film or digital. . . . do they really look that different from each other, or do they just look like "mine"?)

The only films I could never get along with to get what I wanted out of them were the TMax series. There are two Polypan 50 shots on the first flickr page, and I bet you can't find them.

NickLimegrove · Dec 12, 2014

mdarnton said:
non-camera related stuff

yup, make sure your models are wearing the right clothes, have local authorities block the street you're shooting in to prevent people with smartphones from passing by, place a few appropriate cars in the background, and cover the Apple Store's sign with an old Ilford logo.

Axle · Dec 12, 2014

Push the Tri-X to 800, develop in HC-110 Dil. A, bit a little bit more heavy handed in your agitation. Also an older camera with a center-weighted meter helps as well.

MDR · Dec 12, 2014

Mdarnton even Kodak admits there there are some differences like less grain. The amount of grain has an impact on the overall look. But to be honest Kodak constantly improved and improves there emulsion so does Ilford and so did Agfa. Tri-X of 1954 wasn't the same Tri-X in the 1970's and the film of the 1970's wasn't the film of the 1990 and so on. So if people want the classic Tri-X look they should first state which Tri-X. Modern Tri-X a bit overdeveloped should look like Tri-X from the 70's. as for the clothing plenty of people run around in vintage or new fashion that looks like it was made in the 1950's to 1980's

Marco Buonocore · Dec 12, 2014

I'm always confused when I see suggestions like "push Foma 400 to 1600". It's bananas. Have you ever seen old Tri-X? What makes you think it looks like it's been grossly underexposed and overcooked?

I've been printing 40-50 year old Tri-X negs for the last little while for an exhibition. 8"x12" is the print size. It's a bit grainier than it currently is, but not much. I'm used to looking at modern Tri-X under the grain magnifier, it's what I shoot for my own work.

You don't have to boil the negs in Dektol to achieve the look. A normal EI developed in Rodinal will probably do fine.

mdarnton · Dec 12, 2014

MDR said:
Mdarnton even Kodak admits there there are some differences like less grain.

Yeah, but how much? 10%? .5%? .1%? How fine is fine enough? I have essentially grain-free 8x10s from the old film, and nearly grain-free 11x14s. I also have really awful results from modern films, by underexposing just one stop. Exposure, development, temperatures, etc. is where it's at. As I said, the substantive difference isn't the materials; it's the user and how he uses. Blaming materials for results is usually a dead end, unless you actually know what you're doing and control all the variables properly, which, by the way, I see very little of these days.

MDR · Dec 12, 2014

"Blaming materials for results is usually a dead end, unless you actually know what you're doing and control all the variables properly, which, by the way, I see very little of these days. " I agree with this statement but what people refer to as the classic tri-x look is usually the photojournalistic look of Tri-X meaning less than optimal exposure, quick film developing often in less than optimal conditions etc... all this resulted in a grainier and harsher look that can easily be optained with modern Tri-X. The old-tri-x 1954 to 1970'S did have a lot more grain than modern Tri-x

Gerald C Koch · Dec 12, 2014

Has anyone noticed that Kodak changed the name of the film from Tri-X to 400TX? While a manufacturer may make small incremental and unannounced changes to a product, Kodak wanted to emphasize that a major change had been made to Tri-X. It is amazing how few people seem to grasp the significance of this change. Kodak released more than one announcement of the change. One was a very nice four page publication announcing the changes to Tri-X, Tri-X Professional and Plus-X. The most noticeable change was finer grain. But there are others. So, paradoxically, to achieve the "classic Tri-X look" one must really go to another film. But other factors are also involved.

Gerald C Koch · Dec 12, 2014

If there's any difference between then and now in what people are getting, it's subject matter, visual attitude, other non-camera related stuff

Exactly. This was the conclusion reached on at least one other thread about the "look" of certain films. Stylistic elements such as lighting, fashion, subject matter, etc. are more important than the use of a particular film.

Michael W · Dec 12, 2014

Marco Buonocore said:
I'm always confused when I see suggestions like "push Foma 400 to 1600". It's bananas. Have you ever seen old Tri-X? What makes you think it looks like it's been grossly underexposed and overcooked?

This is what the original poster requested, edited to the specific request addressed. I was in no way suggesting that Foma 400 at 1600 looks like old Tri-X; I was giving them a film/dev combination that gives grain and deep blacks, exactly as they requested.

Cybertrash said:
I've been considering shooting a series of portraits or "editorial" images for my portfolio that are more uncontrolled than my normal studio-lit work. For these images I would really like to achieve this classic "photojournalist" look for my images. I'm thinking of images by Capa, HCB, Robert Frank et. al, but also the English music photographers of the 60s and 70s (London Calling cover for example), with "bitey" grain, contrasty and sooty blacks. I'm looking for advice on how to best achieve this, mainly by film + developer choice.

Achieving "classic Tri-X" look

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency