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

[braxus]

I'll admit most of the Tri-X 400 film I have shot, is the latest version since 2007. I did shoot a few rolls of the older stuff, of which one was around 2003, which was the previous version. The 2003 version looked a little better to me, and even had a bit of that glow in tones, that the latest version doesn't seem to replicate. But I really could be just full of sh*t and the films looks almost the same with certain subjects. My Avatar was shot on the 2003 roll. It could also just be a scanner difference. I know the grain is finer on the new stuff, and the silver content was reduced. Usually when silver is reduced, it looks to me something is lost in comparison to the older stuff. Again I can't prove that, but its just an observation.

So has anyone else noticed anything between the latest and the previous versions of Tri-X 400? Im tempted to buy a couple rolls of the previous stuff (however fogged it will be) and see if I can notice any difference.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not me.

 

[braxus]

I saw this video a couple days ago, which made me think more on this.

 

[MattKing]

Most of these were 1970s Tri-X:

In the 1970s, that was great film.
The modern Tri-X is better, and the modern T-Max 400 is better still.

 

[braxus]

I'll agree the new TMAX 400 is a great film. Im not sure in what way you think the new Tri-X is better, other then grain size?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You have to define better. I think modern film is worse from my point of view. Technically it is finer grained, etc, but I don't care about that. I am more interested in image structure.

I wish someone would make a film like old Tri-X. I think in this digital world it would be a big hit. Most modern films look awfully digital. Films just don't have any guts anymore.

 

[braxus]

When I say the old film has some glow to it, I believe Im saying the micro contrast or the many tones they show per grays. Panatomic X also has this quality. The new film to me looks a little more lifeless than before. Azriel Knight also commented about this in the video I posted above. Im on the fence today on which film I now like better- new Tri-X or new TMAX 400. But not for the same reasons.

 

[Down Under]

What is the point?? The 'older' version of Tri-X no longer exists. Almost none of it is available now, and what little it you do find will usually be on sites like Ebay, old, of unknown storage, and likely as not age-fogged to bummery. In other words, a big risk.

Like almost everybody else, when Kodak discontinued first Panatomic-X and then Plus-X and more recently increased Tri-X prices to ultra unrealistic/unreasonable levels, I went initially to the T-Max films, which I liked - and now to Ilford HP5 and FP4, which are priced realistically and, I think, just as good.

Realistically, North Americans may well like Tri-X and the T-Max films, but most of the rest of us in the world don't. We have found other (and to me better) substitutes, and we buy them and use them.

Kodak's film history since 2000 is another classic case of a manufacturer shooting itself in the head.

 

[madNbad]

Comparing the older version of Tri-X to the t grain modern film or even the reformulated current offer is like comparing a Plymouth GTX to a Subaru BRZ. The Plymouth was brute force with a big engine. The Subaru offers power, comfort, good handling, great suspension and brakes plus a ton of safety features not even imagined fifty years ago. The original Tri-X was perfect for the newspaper’s of the time, offering plenty of grain and grit. Digital technology and how we view images has changed how we look at photographs. The new formulations offer a much wider range of tones and a much richer image than the older films. It’s nice to be nostalgic, the reality is the new films are superior.

 

[braxus]

What is your point?? The 'older' version of Tri-X no longer exists. Almost none of it is available now, and what little it you do find will usually be on sites like Ebay, old, of unknown storage, and likely as not age-fogged to bummery. In other words, a big risk.

Am I not allowed to discuss an older film, even if it is no longer available? This is what this forum is for- knowledge. No need to be a bit testy about it.

 

[McDiesel]

@braxus I have never shot the old Tri-X. If you end up finding some, I'll be interested in your findings! Make sure to compare it to HP5+ too, that's my goto when I don't need the clean appearance of finer-grained modern films.

 

[braxus]

I find Tri-X completely different then HP5. HP5 is a film I never warmed to. Found it didn't have the deeper contrast I liked. And mushy grain.

There is some early 2000s Tri-X currently on the Bay right now, but he's asking a lot for it and who knows if its any good. I found even 10 year old frozen Tri-X still has fog. 20 year old film may be much worse. But for an experiment, Im considering getting a couple rolls. I still have my 35mm and 120 negs of the older version. I should check those and scan again.

 

[gone]

I don't have any old Tri-X. I've never had any old Tri-X, just new Tri-X. 20 years ago I was shooting new Tri-X too. It's impossible to compare any of this stuff because I use different developers now. My Tri-X from 20 years was always developed in D76 stock, and that gave it an old timey look w/ great tonality.

It's a great film, although my negs from Foma 100 and 400 are easily just as good, and my Delta 100 negs are even "better". However, my recent mistake of accidentally exposing Foma 400 at EI 800 went about as badly as you would have thought it would.

Now if I had used Tri-X and accidentally exposed it at EI 800, those negs would have looked fine. So even though it's hard to beat Foma's lower price and nice negs, Tri-X would be the film to use if someone isn't sure of the light or other variables.

 

[madNbad]

Over the last several years, T-Max 400 was my go to film, There’s a lot to like about it with a wide tonal range and good ISO flexibility. I tried a few rolls of FP-5+ but never bonded with it. Then I bought a few rolls of Double X. At first I didn’t really like it until I went back and looked at the images taken with it. Next was some Tri-X which I thought I would never go back to. After using the T grain films for a long time, there was something comfortable and familiar using the older emulsions. Currently, there are two bulk loaders in the refrigerator. One with Double X and the other with Tri-X. I hope braxus and anyone else who wants to try the old formulation can find some.

 

[logan2z]

Kodak discontinued first Panatomic-X and then Plus-X and more recently increased Tri-X prices to ultra unrealistic/unreasonable levels,

I haven't bought Tri-X for a little while, but I'm pretty sure I paid just over $8 a roll when I last purchased a few months ago. It looks like it's up to $10.49 a roll now. That is getting a bit nuts.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29170-USA/Kodak_8667073_TX_135_36_Tri_X_Pan.html

 

[faberryman]

Can someone detail the timeline of changes to Tri-X from its introduction in roll film sizes in 1954, and in particular demark the date when old Tri-X became new Tri-X?

 

[NB23]

Can someone detail the timeline of changes to Tri-X from its introduction in roll film sizes in 1954, and in particular demark the date when old Tri-X became new Tri-X?

I believe the last change occured in 2013.
Tri-x from the 90’s had grotesque grain by today’s standards but I loved it.

 

[ic-racer]

Any examples of anything discussed here?

 

[markbau]

My understanding is that TMax was Kodak's response to the price of silver rising dramatically, they wanted this new Tabular grain technology to produce a film that everyone would use and keep their profits up after everyone switched to it. Well after a little while there were those that loved the new film and those that went back to their trusty Tri X. Kodak then started tinkering with Tri X to reduce the amount of silver in it. I've heard that modern Tri X has some amount of tabular technology to reduce the amount of silver but I can't confirm that as my Kodak insider is no longer of this world. There is no doubt that old Tri X and the stuff they sell now are quite different emulsions. I've switched 100% to Ilford film now. Long live FP4!

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't know the timeline for TriX evolution, I shot TriX in the 60s and 70s and quite liked the 70s version, as noted a bit more gain, somewhat more contrast, I think resolution was about the same. Grain got smaller and tighter in the 80s, I think a major change was made in the 90s. The last generation of TriX has finer grain, less contrast, close to Tmax in many regards which is why I now shoot Tmax 400 for travel.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I used sheet film version sporadically in the 90's. Not enough to really see any difference between it and the stuff today. I have a few fresh 120 rolls that I want to shoot alongside HP5.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Any examples of anything discussed here?

Here are two examples from 1996. I am not sure how much you can learn from these photographs. There is not much glow in grungy topics in Vicksburg, Mississippi, on a gloomy day. This is Tri-X 400 exposed at EI=250, Nikon F3 and the 35-70mm ƒ/3.3-4.5 lens (the inexpensive little zoom lens that was amazingly good). By the time you have scanned the negative, resized, converted to jpeg, and adjusted sharpening and contrast, it is hard to tell how such a negative would print optically.

Some more examples if you are brave: https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2014/10/vicksburg-in-old-days-90s.html

 

[pentaxuser]

There is some early 2000s Tri-X currently on the Bay right now, but he's asking a lot for it and who knows if its any good.

He's asking a lot for severely outdated film because we now seemed to have moved into an era where in the film world anything old seems to carry a reverse premium for which there is no sensible reason whatsoever

I have some 4x5 sheets that a press photographer carried to but didn't use at the famous LaMott v Robinson fight where LaMotta knocked Robinson through the ropes. With that kind of a connection to being old it has to be worth a fortune and is quite different from any other sheet film that has simply lain in a box deteriorating for nearly 80 years. There is something special about this 80 yr old film I am selling

What the hell has got into this pentaxuser guy you rightly ask or certainly would have done only a few years ago. His assertion about this 80 year old film or any 80 year old film being worth a fortune has to mean he is certifiable, surely? Yet the strangest thing is that this reasoning on price is applied to old film and it appears to work !!! People press the Buy Now button


I think you have summed up the reasons why this old Tri-X may be of questionable value at an inflated price

I take some solace in the fact that as of now, such people do not have total control over the price of water or other of life's essentials but only sell film

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak and others have always improved their films and Tri-X is no exception. While on occasion I have the opportunity to buy older versions of films, I do not unless it is a discontinued film with unique features.

 

[MattKing]

My understanding is that TMax was Kodak's response to the price of silver rising dramatically, they wanted this new Tabular grain technology to produce a film that everyone would use and keep their profits up after everyone switched to it. Well after a little while there were those that loved the new film and those that went back to their trusty Tri X. Kodak then started tinkering with Tri X to reduce the amount of silver in it. I've heard that modern Tri X has some amount of tabular technology to reduce the amount of silver but I can't confirm that as my Kodak insider is no longer of this world. There is no doubt that old Tri X and the stuff they sell now are quite different emulsions. I've switched 100% to Ilford film now. Long live FP4!

While there would have been some savings in the amount of silver employed, that would have had, at most, a marginal effect on profitability.
Kodak's efforts to find solutions that required less silver were more related to the problems than being experienced with certainty of supply, not reduction of costs.
The technology incorporated in T-Max films (which itself originated in the motion picture film realm) offered substantial improvements in grain and acutance, as well as interesting improvements in performance due to the capability of creating a characteristic curve with a long straight line section.