Differences between T-Max 400 and Tri-X 400?

[imageWIS.]

I have been shooting BW using Kodak T-Max 400, with the ISO set on my camera to 400. But this semester I’m taking Experimental Photography and our first assignment is to shoot using Tri-X 400, with the ISO set to 200.

What discernable differences will I see between the 2 films? Especially with the settings changed? I must mention that I’ve never used Tri-X 400 before. Any tips regarding shooting?

Thanks!

Jon.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I have been shooting BW using Kodak T-Max 400, with the ISO set on my camera to 400. But this semester I’m taking Experimental Photography and our first assignment is to shoot using Tri-X 400, with the ISO set to 200.

What discernable differences will I see between the 2 films? Especially with the settings changed? I must mention that I’ve never used Tri-X 400 before. Any tips regarding shooting?

Thanks!

Jon.

I like TMAX 400 for its ability to record a wide range of shadow detail while still holding excellent higlight detail. I rate TMAX 400 at ISO 400. BTW, I develop TMAX 400 in Pyrocat.


IMHO Tmax is better at recording highlight and shadow detail than Tri X 400.


Take a look at the Tri-X D log E curves here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.pdf

 

[Roger Hicks]

What discernable differences will I see between the 2 films? Especially with the settings changed?

Better tonality, coarser grain, lower sharpness, less likelihood of 'blown' highlights, vastly more tolerance of poor exposure (especially when wilfully overexposed).

Does the assignment tell you what sort of metering to use, or how to use it? Spot, incident, weighted, matrix, favouring shadows or highlights? Does it limit you to one developer (e.g. Perceptol, fine grain, low speed, DD-X, high speed, bigger grain}?

Because if it doesn't, they'll never know what EI you used (at 200 it isn't likely to be ISO, of course, just an EI or Exposure Index).

 

[dslater]

Better tonality, coarser grain, lower sharpness, less likelihood of 'blown' highlights, vastly more tolerance of poor exposure (especially when wilfully overexposed).

Hi Roger,
I assume you're talking about Tri-X here correct? I'm curious, what do you mean about "better tonality"? I see this phrase thrown around here a lot, but I'm not quite sure what it means. Can you elaborate some more on this?

Thanks,

Dan

 

[imageWIS.]

I’m using an FM10; the fact that it has a light meter at all is amazing . She didn’t give us any instructions other than to take one roll of pictures (nonspecific) with Tri-X 400 at ISO 200.

Jon.

 

[fhovie]

Tonality is a very subjective thing - In my mind it is a distortion of tonal rendition that adds a new dimension to an image. A digital image with chroma removed has-no-soul - it is like a cartoon because of the way a ccd sees color and converts it to a greyscale. TMY is not as bad but it does not have the same tonal rendition as TX. I have shot both. TMY is incredibly fine - it has little reciprocity failure - it is faster and has better resolution. TX is sharper and grainier. It is slower but far more forgiving. It is my one main film for MF and for LF, it is the film for an impossible shot. If I have 12 stops to capture, I will use TX. If I have an EV of 3 or 4 or if I need to shoot motion, it will be TX. I can make TX have scary accutance or make it very soft with different developers. On the other hand, If I want to make 20x30 with MF - TMY would do better. For pinhole photography it is TMY. The reason I buy TX in lots of 100 and TMY in lots of 10 is because TX is so much more gutsy. TX is like music with the bass turned up and TMY is like a preset EQ for normal music.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Hi Roger,
I assume you're talking about Tri-X here correct? I'm curious, what do you mean about "better tonality"? I see this phrase thrown around here a lot, but I'm not quite sure what it means. Can you elaborate some more on this?

Thanks,

Dan

Dan: coarser grain, lower sharpness, GREATER likelihood of 'blown' highlights describes Tri-x to me.

I've seen excellent tonality (by that, I mean a wide tonal range with good tonal/microtonal separation) in contact prints (Azo and PtPd) made from 8x10 Tri-X negatives developed in D-76.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,
I assume you're talking about Tri-X here correct? I'm curious, what do you mean about "better tonality"? I see this phrase thrown around here a lot, but I'm not quite sure what it means. Can you elaborate some more on this?

Thanks,

Dan

Dear Dan,

Yes, Tri-X. Tonality is far easier to recognize than to describe. Any description is merely a restatement: 'richer', 'better shadow detail', 'smoother gradation', 'more subtle'... Most of this is down to a modest amount of extra exposure, but Tri-X will let you get away with a lot more extra exposure before it starts to penalize you with suddernly MUCH worse grain, lower sharoness, etc. Current T-grain films are a lot better than the first generation but most people (not all) find traditional films more suitable for a wider range of subjects.

Manufacturers can get superb pics out of almost anything, by choosing the right subject. If the film doesn't suit your subject, it just won't look as... well... good.

Sorry to wimp out like this, but what I'd say is: try it.

Edit: fhovie put it beautifully.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

I’m using an FM10; the fact that it has a light meter at all is amazing . She didn’t give us any instructions other than to take one roll of pictures (nonspecific) with Tri-X 400 at ISO 200.

Jon.

Dear Jon,

What she's trying is idiot-proofing, plus demonstrating that personal film speeds are a matter of opinion. By rating the film 1 stop low (as I say, EI, NOT ISO) it's much harder to under-expose the film and you'll get richer tonality (see above).

But if you rate it at 400 and favour the shadows when you make your readings (i.e. include more shadow area than will appear in the final pic) you'll get much the same results as general readings at 200. If you dev in DD-X you'll get a true ISO of maybe 650, and if you dev in Perceptol you'll get a true ISO of maybe 250, so there's over a stop difference depending on the dev you choose. With spot meter readings of the darkest shadow in which you want detail and EI 500 (in DD-X), you'll probably get similar effects to auto-exposure and EI 200...

You might care to take a look at my web-site, as detailed below. For a bit of further advice for this assignment, go out of your way to shoot subjects with widely differing brightness ranges, and see how that affects your metering and the kind of negs you get.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[imageWIS.]

You might care to take a look at my web-site, as detailed below. For a bit of further advice for this assignment, go out of your way to shoot subjects with widely differing brightness ranges, and see how that affects your metering and the kind of negs you get.

Cheers,

Roger

That’s exactly what I did. I shot last night in a dark restaurant with an f 1.8 and then shot today the rest of the roll around the parking garage at work using an f 3.5-4.8, both in and out of the garage, using different ranges of shadows and light, since it was a perfectly sunny day.

I guess I’ll get idea once the pictures are developed, or at least until I have a contact sheet, no?

Jon.

 

[Roger Hicks]

That’s exactly what I did. I shot last night in a dark restaurant with an f 1.8 and then shot today the rest of the roll around the parking garage at work using an f 3.5-4.8, both in and out of the garage, using different ranges of shadows and light, since it was a perfectly sunny day.

I guess I’ll get idea once the pictures are developed, or at least until I have a contact sheet, no?

Jon.

Dear Jon,

Brilliant! That's exactly what you neded. Best of all if a few of the shots were of subjects with a very low brightness range, i.e. no sunlight in the parking garage, a brightness range of 2-4 stops. When exposed using a camera meter, such pics often look rather thin and underexposed, but usually print OK. Those with an enormous brightness range (bright sun outside, deep shadows inside) may look 'punchy' and contrasty and yet lack tonality in the areas that interest you, when you print them.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Jim_in_Kyiv]

Dear Jon,

Brilliant! That's exactly what you neded. Best of all if a few of the shots were of subjects with a very low brightness range, i.e. no sunlight in the parking garage, a brightness range of 2-4 stops. When exposed using a camera meter, such pics often look rather thin and underexposed, but usually print OK. Those with an enormous brightness range (bright sun outside, deep shadows inside) may look 'punchy' and contrasty and yet lack tonality in the areas that interest you, when you print them.

Cheers,

Roger

Thanks Roger,

That description covers my present issue. I was working on that very problem last night - 6x9 contact prints (no MF enlarger at the moment) of a well-lit silver airplane against trees, but from under the dark wing of another airplane. And with clouds and semi-lit engines that I wanted. I'm very happy with the negative, but am having a hard time with the print. It's quickly taking the rust off of my darkroom skills.

Jim

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's quickly taking the rust off of my darkroom skills.

Dear Jim,

D'you think people would believe us if we started a thread about phosphoric acid developer, for that very purpose...?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Rolleijoe]

I have been shooting BW using Kodak T-Max 400, with the ISO set on my camera to 400. But this semester I’m taking Experimental Photography and our first assignment is to shoot using Tri-X 400, with the ISO set to 200.

What discernable differences will I see between the 2 films? Especially with the settings changed? I must mention that I’ve never used Tri-X 400 before. Any tips regarding shooting?

Thanks!

Jon.

Tri-X @ EI 200 is a standard for most photographers. I can enlarge 16x20 from 35mm with hardly any grain, from 120 with practically no grain (20x20), and it gives a much more beautiful look (not as "sterile/cold") as T-Mud. Especially when developed in HC-110 1:50 from the syrup.

Really Beautiful stuff. In over 20 years I've never been happy with T-Mud each time I would try it. Tri-X is the standard.

Good luck in your class.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . I guess I’ll get idea once the pictures are developed, or at least until I have a contact sheet, no?

Jon.

While the contact sheet is useful, it is an intepretation of the negative. The negative often reveals information that is lost in the contact sheet. You should eventually find that examining the negative itself will be more informative.

 

[Videbaek]

I agree with you, Rolleijoe, wholeheartedly. I don't use Tmax anymore. I've had great-looking negatives of Tmax 100 and gone to the darkroom whistling, only to get more and more puzzled working on the prints... "What's wrong here, why aren't these working?" It's so... correct. Perfect for a chem lab photo shoot. Not for anything I want to do. Delta 100 is better, but still not for me.