Do you miss TXP (Tri-X 320)?

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If so, TMax 100 might be your friend.

By underexposing TMax 100 two stops at EI 400, and then push processing in Xtol 1:1, you will get results that are confusingly alike the venerable Tri-X 320 (TXP).

One of the frames below is Tri-X 320 processed in replenished Xtol, and the other according to the recipe above. If I hadn't known which is which, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart. The sky changed between shots.

Both frames scanned according to the same scanner settings, and processed together using the same changes. No individual changes, except overcoming the higher base fog of TXP by adding just a hair more contrast in the black on that frame.

Grain, you say? Of course TXP will have more grain. But perhaps the sharpness of TMax will help you overcome your loss.

- Thomas

 

[erikg]

Thomas, what was your time and temp for the pushed TMX?

Pretty remarkable test.

 

[Rick A]

I just happen to have a box of TXP 4x5 in the freezer---hmm....

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Or if you need more speed.... TMAX-400 can be made to behave like TXP-320. I expose TMAX-400 @ iso 320 and develop for about 7.5 to 8 minutes using replenished TMAX developer @ 1:4 dilution (68 deg f)

 

[Rick A]

I always shoot my TMax 400 at half speed and soup in Rodinal 1+50 for that creamy smooth look.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, what was your time and temp for the pushed TMX?

Pretty remarkable test.

I don't remember exactly, but I think it was 1:1 for 14 minutes, agitating every 2 minutes.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I always shoot my TMax 400 at half speed and soup in Rodinal 1+50 for that creamy smooth look.

That will not look anything like Tri-X 320, however. I'm glad that works for you, though.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Or if you need more speed.... TMAX-400 can be made to behave like TXP-320. I expose TMAX-400 @ iso 320 and develop for about 7.5 to 8 minutes using replenished TMAX developer @ 1:4 dilution (68 deg f)

It's always nice with alternatives... If I were to do the same with TMax 400 (which I have done), I shoot it at 1,600 and process in Xtol 1:1. That gives me the same toe that Tri-X 320 had. I'm not familiar with TMax developer, so I just trust your eye that it works like a charm...

 

[cjbecker]

looks like i will be trying hp5 at 800 and 1600.

 

[steven_e007]

looks like i will be trying hp5 at 800 and 1600.

The thing about Tri-x is that Kodak recommend increasing the standard developement time by about 30 to 40% for a two stop push. Check Ilfords recommendations for HP5+ and they recommend doubling the basic time and then some...

One reason why Tri-X fans accuse HP5+ of being 'low contrast', I reckon, and the reason why I managed to get Tri-X negatives too dense to print....

Can't help you with long toes and straight portions and stuff, I ain't that clever, but try giving it a nice looooong soak in some hot, undiluted stock developer just to prove you can get all the contrast you want (and a lot you probably don't ;-)

 

[cjbecker]

Can't help you with long toes and straight portions and stuff, I ain't that clever, but try giving it a nice looooong soak in some hot, undiluted stock developer just to prove you can get all the contrast you want (and a lot you probably don't ;-)

point proven.

 

[brian steinberger]

The thing about Tri-x is that Kodak recommend increasing the standard developement time by about 30 to 40% for a two stop push. Check Ilfords recommendations for HP5+ and they recommend doubling the basic time and then some...

One reason why Tri-X fans accuse HP5+ of being 'low contrast', I reckon, and the reason why I managed to get Tri-X negatives too dense to print....

Can't help you with long toes and straight portions and stuff, I ain't that clever, but try giving it a nice looooong soak in some hot, undiluted stock developer just to prove you can get all the contrast you want (and a lot you probably don't ;-)

I frequently push HP5 to EI 640 in overcast conditions, developing in ID-11 1:1 for 16 minutes. Very nice results. I wouldn't push HP5 any more than this. I have not had better luck pushing Tri-x. I wouldn't try pushing HP5 further than this unless you go with Xtol, Tmax, or DD-x developer. Many films can be made to look similar to TXP simply by under-exposing and over-developing.

 

[mts]

Do I miss Tri-X 320? I do miss a couple of old girl friends, but the current wife is fine as is TMax 400.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

looks like i will be trying hp5 at 800 and 1600.

All I can say is: Try it and see if it works for you. I have only tried replicating the characteristics of TXP with TMax 400 and 100 (and a roll or two of Acros), and I know it works with them. I'm not sure that you'd get the same highlights with HP5+, as I believe it would shoulder off more. But just try it. You have nothing to lose. You may end up shooting it at 800 instead of 1600. Or 500. Only your eyes can tell you what you will like in your prints, and that's by far the most important thing. Have fun!

 

[cjbecker]

The shouldering off is what Im scared of. Let the tests begin.

 

[Gabino]

when you look at the grass covered by snow aside of the river/canal, you can see that the one on the left shows more "apparent" or real detail, hard to say from a scanned image. I wonder why this detail is not as pronounced as on the image on the right. I am inclined to think that the one on the left is TXP, but I am not sure and this is not a competition. But I'd like to know, regardless. Thanks for posting this test.

 

[Snapshot]

I sort of miss it but I'm finding solace in the T-Max 400 speed films.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

I don't miss it because I still have a ton in the freezer.

 

[MaximusM3]

I don't miss it because I still have a ton in the freezer.

Bitch! I don't miss it because I'm just glad there is still film, any film, to shoot

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Bitch! I don't miss it because I'm just glad there is still film, any film, to shoot

There are still many wonderful films out there, and I have always argued that we can alter the results more by working with technique than changing materials. You make a good point.

 

[MaximusM3]

There are still many wonderful films out there, and I have always argued that we can alter the results more by working with technique than changing materials. You make a good point.

Yeah, like Acros @ 400 in uncle T's heart warming Kodak chicken soup!

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Yeah or Verichrome in my soup...
Just teasing guys !

 

[MaximusM3]

Yeah or Verichrome in my soup...
Just teasing guys !

Hey, I have some of that can you sell me some soup?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yeah or Verichrome in my soup...
Just teasing guys !

Soon people will be talking like that about Plus-X...

I think I am convinced that with few exceptions, any film in any soup can make for beautiful prints.

 

[MaximusM3]

I think I am convinced that with few exceptions, any film in any soup can make for beautiful prints.

What exceptions? :munch: