Do People Like the Older Versions of Tri-X 400 More?

[NB23]

Yes I am nostalgic.
Basically, TMX + Xtol has stripped many of my images from a look that would otherwise make them very appealing.

As soon as I open a photography book from the 80’s and below I drool over the BW images. Wow, those were the days

 

[warden]

I wish I can get a tonality like that of the Vivian Maier in #60.

I once shot a roll of modern 35mm 400TX and a roll of Double-X 5222 at the same time, then processed them simultaneously in HC-110. I liked prints from the latter more.

I love her results too. I'm hard pressed to find faults with 1950s Tri-X images when properly focused and exposed in a great camera, and competently developed and printed.

 

[faberryman]

I love her results too. I'm hard pressed to find faults with 1950s Tri-X images when properly focused and exposed in a great camera, and competently developed and printed.

Compare Vivian Maier's 120 image in post #43 with Matt's friend's 4x5 image in post #60. Was the Roger Bannister image cropped and enlarged? What else could explain the difference in quality? Processing?

 

[grain elevator]

Compare Vivian Maier's 120 image in post #43 with Matt's friend's 4x5 image in post #60. Was the Roger Bannister image cropped and enlarged? What else could explain the difference in quality? Processing?

Possibly cropped, also definitely out of focus.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

You don't see modern films as an improvement over old ones, and don't see the need for fine grain films. That's fine, but I have a different viewpoint. You talked about fine grain film driving taste and thus demand in the 1950's and onward toward modern T-grain film, while I think the process was really the opposite.

Just to nuance a bit, a we agree on certain points. Fine grain was not needed—not in the sense that a longer-lasting electric car battery is needed for the electric car to truly become practical. Fine grain was desired—as Matt eloquently wrote: "most of us felt that grain usually got in the way of the film doing what we wanted of them." I don't talk about "fine grain film driving taste", it's the opposite: changes in taste, brought upon by various factors, were part of the motivation towards fine-grain films.

Need implies a necessity. It has to improve or it becomes useless (an electric-car battery that can only get you as far as 25 or 30 km) or obsolete. I think it's great that fine-grain and T-grain films exist—I use Delta 100 once in a while. But changing Tri-X was not a necessity in the sense that it would still be used today to great effet if it had remained the same. Would people buy it considering it would go against the prevalent taste? Maybe not. But then its change would be motivated by marketing, not by necessity.

Again, my point is that it's a significant change, not an improvement—much the same way the CD was a significant change from vinyl, not an improvement (enter endless argument here). I'm neither for, or against grain. I like having access to variety and diversity—the idea that if I want grain I'll have it, and if I don't, I can also have that possibility. Essentially, it's the reason I shoot three formats, 35mm, 120 and 4x5.

If the idea implied in this whole notion of "improvement" is that all films should strive towards smaller and smaller grain because, well, I don't know what, then I do think something will be lost in the diversity and richness of the film experience. But I'll survive and still listen to the White Album. On vinyl. Or CD. Or Spotify...

 

[faberryman]

Are photographers really clamoring for a return to the Tri-X of yore which gave us the print quality from 4x5 shown in the Roger Bannister image in post #43?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Difference? "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn..."
Anyway, it was and is still a good film (although it got a bit costly lately).

 

[MattKing]

Are photographers really clamoring for a return to the Tri-X of yore which gave us the print quality from 4x5 shown in the Roger Bannister image in post #43?

For clarity, that was an internet image I linked to. I actually chose that one over a couple of other possibilities because of the "Copyright" splashed over it - perhaps as a nod to Charlie, who protected that copyright right until his death in 2018. As far as I know, his family is still protecting it.
My 45 year old memory of the print I made was that it was definitely better than that! But it was grainy (IIRC).
It was also a handheld (Speed Graphic?) shot of two of the fastest human beings in the world passing Charlie at the penultimate corner of one of the most important races in the world at that time. So a comparison with Vivian Maier's Rollieflex work may not be all that appropriate.
The negative was also developed under deadline in a daily newspaper's darkroom. I expect it received there the standard, "get it done quick and get on to the next story" approach that just about everything would receive.

 

[warden]

Compare Vivian Maier's 120 image in post #43 with Matt's friend's 4x5 image in post #60. Was the Roger Bannister image cropped and enlarged? What else could explain the difference in quality? Processing?

I would assume everything but the film would explain the difference in quality. They may have both been made with Tri-X.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yes I am nostalgic.
Basically, TMX + Xtol has stripped many of my images from a look that would otherwise make them very appealing.

As soon as I open a photography book from the 80’s and below I drool over the BW images. Wow, those were the days

Then do not use XTOL and do not use tabular grain films. This is not rocket science.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Difference? "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn..."
Anyway, it was and is still a good film (although it got a bit costly lately).

 

[NB23]

Then do not use XTOL and do not use tabular grain films. This is not rocket science.

Why should I not use XTOL, nor tabular grain?

XTOL looks ok with Tri-x, and TMZ is an amazing film. TMX and TMY as well, are amazing films.

What you most probably mean to say, and which is totally different than what you are saying is “do not use XTOL + TMX”. In which case I will agree with you. XTOL with tmax 100 is not a good combo at all.

 

[grat]

As soon as I open a photography book from the 80’s and below I drool over the BW images. Wow, those were the days

Maybe you're missing the typesetting technology used in printing from then.

Reading up on "old Tri-X", from the 1946 Kodak Handbook floating around, I find quotes like these:

General Properties: An extremely fast, long-scale film with excellent quality and
moderate contrast, particularly suited for commercial studio work with models or
other subjects requiring short exposures. Tri-X Panchromatic Film gives brilliant
rendering of both highlights and shadows, even with subjects of pronounced
brightness range. It is an ideal material for making color-separation negatives.

Graininess: Allows moderate enlargement without objectionable grain.

Resolving Power: 40 lines per mm. This figure is based on optimum exposure,
subject contrast of 30:1, and recommended development.

That's about the lowest resolution film Kodak lists in that book-- most other films reach 50-60 lp/mm.

I can certainly understand the appeal-- but I can also understand adding a bit finer grain and resolution for studio/portrait work. And that's part of the issue here-- most film has been marketed, at least for the last 40 years I've been paying attention, for a purpose, rather than a "look".

I also found it interesting that the film is classed as "Panchromatic Type C" which emphasizes yellow/orange, unlike Type B which is a closer match to human vision.

 

[markjwyatt]

...

I also found it interesting that the film is classed as "Panchromatic Type C" which emphasizes yellow/orange, unlike Type B which is a closer match to human vision.

Found this article from 1962:
A Comparison of High-speed
Photographic Films With Different
Vigorous Development Conditions

IEEE Xplore Full-Text PDF:

ieeexplore.ieee.org

"Tri-X, including the newly improved Tri-X, is a type B film with slightly higher blue-to-green sensitivity; and at maximum development, it would produce greater density on the weaker oscilloscope traces than Superior 4 film."

The paper talks about older 1959 style Tri-X and the 1960 "improved" Tri-X.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Found this article from 1962:
A Comparison of High-speed
Photographic Films With Different
Vigorous Development Conditions

IEEE Xplore Full-Text PDF:

ieeexplore.ieee.org

"Tri-X, including the newly improved Tri-X, is a type B film with slightly higher blue-to-green sensitivity; and at maximum development, it would produce greater density on the weaker oscilloscope traces than Superior 4 film."

The paper talks about older 1959 style Tri-X and the 1960 "improved" Tri-X.

I cannot remember the last time I needed to photograph oscilloscope traces.

 

[markjwyatt]

I cannot remember the last time I needed to photograph oscilloscope traces.

That was just one part of the study, but the paper is premised on technical photography.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Found this article from 1962:
A Comparison of High-speed
Photographic Films With Different
Vigorous Development Conditions

IEEE Xplore Full-Text PDF:

ieeexplore.ieee.org

"Tri-X, including the newly improved Tri-X, is a type B film with slightly higher blue-to-green sensitivity; and at maximum development, it would produce greater density on the weaker oscilloscope traces than Superior 4 film."

The paper talks about older 1959 style Tri-X and the 1960 "improved" Tri-X.

Fascinating. Interesting to note that there's not a single developer in these tests still in use today.

 

[Down Under]

I think it would be interesting if Kodak were to re-introduce 2475 recording film that incorporates the more modern technology now found in Tri-X. That would offer a "grainy", higher contrast choice for those who wanted it. T-Max 3200 really doesn't offer that.
I guess I need to pull out some 45-50 year old Tri-X 35mm negatives and print something.

2475 in its original avatar was a horrible film. In the '80s I processed a few rolls of it for a client who used it for his "experimental" architectural photography. The results were, in a word, crap. I did all I could but nothing printed much larger than 5x8" without a significant loss of sharpness and grain like cracked pepper.

Of course the client blamed the processing. I told him to reshoot and sent him to the best prolab in Melbourne, where he was charged a kidney for the order - and the results were exactly the same. He had the good grace to apologise. I reshot everything with FP4 and HP5 (I've forgotten which) and easily made large prints for his displays.

Ilford's EI 3200 film came out some years later, and was much better to work with, altho we couldn't get much more speed out of it than 1600 at best. Which was more than enough.

Today's films have come a long, long way since that distant past time. But then 99.5% of pro nowadays use digital for such work, with images at EI 6400 and even higher coming out far better than what we could produce 40 years ago even with all the darkroom alchemy then available.

Nostalgia is fun to recall. Like many of us here I still prefer film over The Significant Other, but given the absurd price of 35mm Tri-X nowadays - I've not seen it in 120 rolls for a long time, is it still available in MF?? - I ca no longer be bothered using it in my Rolleiflexes. If I had to shoot everything I did back then, again today, given the choice of film or digital I know which I would be using...

 

[Paul Howell]

The quest for fine grain has to be understood in context of the films of the day. In the 60s 35mm was considered miniature, like in Miniature Camera Magazine. 8X10 was thought of as the professional camera, 5X7 and 4X5 were ok for most commercial work, MF and 35mm for small prints and slides. As 35mm cameras became popular users wanted finer gain. AA states in his 1968 edition of the Negative that he could print a 8X10 from 35mm Panatomic X developed in a fine grain developer like Edwal 20 or Microdol. Fred Pickering talked about AA in the late 70s to his death printing from Trix 35mm developed in HC 110 that looked like 4X5, it wasn't the HC 110 it was the newer versions of Trix. Film evolved, grain got smaller, resolution improved, today grain is not much of an issue. I can print 11X14 from most 35mm 400 speed film including Kentmere, Ultrafine 400, and certainly from Trix or HP5. Tmax 400 is so fine grained that Tmax developer is an acutance developer. I used Trix in the day, it was much better than GAF 500 or HP 3 or 4, do I want to build a time machine to go back to 1966 to buy TriX, well no.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

...but given the absurd price of 35mm Tri-X nowadays - I've not seen it in 120 rolls for a long time, is it still available in MF?

It is. Currently in-stock at B&H, The Film Photography Project, and undoubtedly others. I don't know about Australia-specific availability, though.

 

[grat]

"Tri-X, including the newly improved Tri-X, is a type B film with slightly higher blue-to-green sensitivity; and at maximum development, it would produce greater density on the weaker oscilloscope traces than Superior 4 film."

The paper talks about older 1959 style Tri-X and the 1960 "improved" Tri-X.

I suspected there had been changes over the years, which is why I specified the year of the source material.

I cannot remember the last time I needed to photograph oscilloscope traces.

1986 as part of a high school science fair project. Unfortunately, as it was my father's SLR, he was the one doing the photography, and I don't remember which B&W film he used. I do seem to recall it wasn't a multiple of 100, so perhaps it was Tri-X.

 

[warden]

do I want to build a time machine to go back to 1966 to buy TriX, well no.

Time machines are fun because they go in both directions. Do I want to go to the future, when Ferrania* introduces a "perfect" film with unlimited latitude, infinitely fine grain at any magnification, with perfect sharpness, which is iso independent, allowing me to print a picture of the moon at 1:1 size with perfect fidelity?

Well, no.


*

 

[markjwyatt]

Time machines are fun because they go in both directions. Do I want to go to the future, when Ferrania* introduces a "perfect" film with unlimited latitude, infinitely fine grain at any magnification, with perfect sharpness, which is iso independent, allowing me to print a picture of the moon at 1:1 size with perfect fidelity?

Well, no.


*

Well if they did that, what would we talk about here? Oh, right. Lack of grain.

 

[Huss]

Well if they did that, what would we talk about here? Oh, right. Lack of grain.

How to get big grain

Hello all, For some photos I really like the appearance of expressive ,big coarse grain. So I like to ask all of you how to get it. I shoot Black and white. And use Rodinal as film developer. Thx

www.photrio.com

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Yes I am nostalgic.
Basically, TMX + Xtol has stripped many of my images from a look that would otherwise make them very appealing.

As soon as I open a photography book from the 80’s and below I drool over the BW images. Wow, those were the days

I am nostalgic too. TMX + XTOL stock has given my images a look I've striven for since the 1960s. Very appealing. However, what I really drool over are old prints made on papers that were worth printing on. Those papers seem to have disappeared when cadmium was banned from them and available base ended up being limited to one supplier.

As for TRI-X (rolls, not contact-printed 320TXP sheets), I always despised it. "Old" or "new." The current stuff is slightly less ugly than what used to be sold under the same name. So in that sense, it's "improved."

There's lots of back and forth in this thread about film improvement. A rational observer could not come to any conclusion other than that "films have improved compared to the characteristics their predecessors exhibited." However, humans are not inherently rational. Many of them shooting film prefer crappier films. What else could explain the whole Lomography thing? Thus, TRI-X is Kodak's biggest seller. Manufacturers only survive if they cater to the market, and Kodak surely needs to do whatever it can to survive.

As long as Kodak keeps making sheets of TMY-2, I'm happy. Others can revel in their unsharp, grainy TRI-X, even if it's less unsharp and grainy than it used to be. To each her/his own.