Found tri-x, how do I tell if it's 400 or 320

TheGreatGasMaskMan · Feb 25, 2019

Today, I found a 120 roll of tri x in a camera at my camera shop and I'll probably develop it tomorrow. the only thing is I don't know if it's tri x 400 or 320. It has a green outer backing paper, and I'll post a picture of the roll tomorrow when it's not late and I have light to work with, but anyone got any identification pointers?

GLS · Feb 26, 2019

An identifier should be printed clearly on the backing paper.

removed account4 · Feb 26, 2019

Looks like from the PDF 320 is only / was only available in SHEETS so most likely it is 400 speed film.
http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/f4017_TriX.pdf

David Lyga · Feb 26, 2019

You know, I don't think that it is going to make a difference. In fact, I'll bet that both emulsions are the identical speed, the difference emanating from a desire to 'overexpose' the 320 type due to its purpose (portraiture!). - David Lyga

Lachlan Young · Feb 26, 2019

David Lyga said:
You know, I don't think that it is going to make a difference. In fact, I'll bet that both emulsions are the identical speed, the difference emanating from a desire to 'overexpose' the 320 type due to its purpose (portraiture!). - David Lyga

No. They are fundamentally different emulsions, very different curve shapes for a start.

guangong · Feb 26, 2019

I used asa 360 tri X in 120 roll film and 45 sheet film. 360 tri X had a rougher surface compared with 400 version in order to allow for touching up negative. 360 was not available in 35mm cassettes.

David Lyga · Feb 26, 2019

Lachlan Young said:
No. They are fundamentally different emulsions, very different curve shapes for a start.

Yes, to re-iterate and corroborate: They are different emulsions, with different Characteristic Curve Shapes (the toe and shoulder are different), but, essentially the speed is the same. The 'necessity' for overexposure with the 320 emanates from a probable desire to have enhanced shadow detail or shadow detail higher up the Curve for better tonal separation. - David Lyga

mcfitz · Feb 26, 2019

jnantz said:
Looks like from the PDF 320 is only / was only available in SHEETS so most likely it is 400 speed film.
http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/f4017_TriX.pdf

320 used to be available in 120 rolls, actually.

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0012285/blogarticle/Kodak-kills-Tri-X-Pro-320-120-220-film

removed account4 · Feb 26, 2019

mcfitz said:
320 used to be available in 120 rolls, actually.

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0012285/blogarticle/Kodak-kills-Tri-X-Pro-320-120-220-film

OOPS!
Thanks for correcting my blatent ignorance on the subject.

David Lyga said:
Yes, to re-iterate and corroborate: They are different emulsions, with different Characteristic Curve Shapes (the toe and shoulder are different), but, essentially the speed is the same. The 'necessity' for overexposure with the 320 emanates from a probable desire to have enhanced shadow detail or shadow detail higher up the Curve for better tonal separation. - David Lyga

David:

The PDF linked to in my previous attempt to be useful in this post, shows development times between these two films to be completely different. My first thoughts were " its only a fraction of an fstop off just process it like Tri-x 400 or 320 it won't matter" until I noticed it would make a huge difference (9 mins vs 10.30 mins in xtol 1:1 for example). Wouldn't make much of a difference to me because I make it a point to over expose and over develop everything but Im guessing the OP doesn't like bulletproof film.

TheGreatGasMaskMan · Feb 26, 2019

GLS said:
An identifier should be printed clearly on the backing paper.

Not seeing anything, I'll check the lead when I develop it later today.

jnantz said:
OOPS!
Thanks for correcting my blatent ignorance on the subject.

I also have some unexposed tx 320 220 rolls. This is why I'm not sure which tri-x my found roll is.

darkroommike · Feb 26, 2019

The roll backing on a 400 speed roll should have "TX 120" on it somewhere and the 320 will have "TXP 120", the first is Tri-X the latter is Tri-X Pan Professional. Two completely different films. According to my Kodak Darkroom Data Guide. about as vintage as that roll, I would guess, TX 120 should get 8.5 minutes at 68 deg. F. in HC-110b and TXP 120 7.33 minutes in the same soup. HC-110 is a favorite of mine for such rescues since it is pretty low fog. How much extra time to add for the age of the roll is up to you.

MattKing · Feb 26, 2019

Correct me if I am wrong, but if the backing paper is green, that would be very old film!
So while darkroommike is probably correct, it may also be the case that film of this vintage would have started out with different times.

Saganich · Feb 26, 2019

Agreed, times will be wrong regardless of TX of TXP at that age. Best to search the thread for developing really old film.

TheGreatGasMaskMan · Feb 26, 2019

darkroommike said:
The roll backing on a 400 speed roll should have "TX 120" on it somewhere and the 320 will have "TXP 120", the first is Tri-X the latter is Tri-X Pan Professional. Two completely different films. According to my Kodak Darkroom Data Guide. about as vintage as that roll, I would guess, TX 120 should get 8.5 minutes at 68 deg. F. in HC-110b and TXP 120 7.33 minutes in the same soup. HC-110 is a favorite of mine for such rescues since it is pretty low fog. How much extra time to add for the age of the roll is up to you.

it says tri-x pan. I'm going to say this is tx 400.

TheGreatGasMaskMan · Feb 26, 2019

Saganich said:
Agreed, times will be wrong regardless of TX of TXP at that age. Best to search the thread for developing really old film.

lead end said tx 120, I'm confirming it's 400

thanks everyone for the information.

BMbikerider · Feb 26, 2019

TriX 320 or 400 ISO for heavens sake that is only 1/3rd of a stop. Get out and use it, you will not be able to tell the difference. Stop worrying about very minor situations.

TheGreatGasMaskMan · Feb 26, 2019

final update. there are three frames on the roll and none of them are any good.
That's just the nature of found film- never know what you'll get.

TheGreatGasMaskMan · Feb 26, 2019

BMbikerider said:
TriX 320 or 400 ISO for heavens sake that is only 1/3rd of a stop. Get out and use it, you will not be able to tell the difference. Stop worrying about very minor situations.

Hey, now I know how to identify the different tri-xs, unexposed or exposed.
Also, they have very different development times.

removed account4 · Feb 26, 2019

TheGreatGasMaskMan said:
Also, they have very different development times.

if you processed them in ansco 130 ( 72ºF) or d72 / dektol ( 68ºF) you could have just processed the rolls, no matter what they were, for about 6 minutes.
i always revert to those 2 developers, they are strong and fast and don't fog up old film.

cmacd123 · Feb 26, 2019

Green paper would be the old version of tri-x. when they went to "Building 38" the name of the film changed to 400TX. (or 320TX)
there is a different data sheet for the Building 38 Tri-x compared to the Former version.

The OLDer version is covered by Kodak Publication "F9" while the newer one is in Publication F-4017 (quite the difference in pub numbers)

the 1999 version of F9 is at
https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f9-Tri-X_Pan-199906.pdf

4017 is at
imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/f4017_TriX.pdf

TheGreatGasMaskMan · Feb 26, 2019

jnantz said:
if you processed them in ansco 130 ( 72ºF) or d72 / dektol ( 68ºF) you could have just processed the rolls, no matter what they were, for about 6 minutes.
i always revert to those 2 developers, they are strong and fast and don't fog up old film.

Well... my developer options are very limited right now, as I could only have used sprint standard tonight.

cmacd123 said:
Green paper would be the old version of tri-x. when they went to "Building 38" the name of the film changed to 400TX. (or 320TX)
there is a different data sheet for the Building 38 Tri-x compared to the Former version.

The OLDer version is covered by Kodak Publication "F9" while the newer one is in Publication F-4017 (quite the difference in pub numbers)

the 1999 version of F9 is at
https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f9-Tri-X_Pan-199906.pdf

4017 is at
imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/f4017_TriX.pdf

Also, considering my results weren't that great anyways, I don't think the difference matters too much.

wiltw · Feb 26, 2019

guangong said:
I used asa 360 tri X in 120 roll film and 45 sheet film. 360 tri X had a rougher surface compared with 400 version in order to allow for touching up negative. 360 was not available in 35mm cassettes.

ASA 360 ?! But the usual progression (in 1/3 EV intervals) is

25
32
40
50
64
80
100
125
160
200
250
320
400

cmacd123 · Feb 26, 2019

wiltw said:
ASA 360 ?! But the usual progression (in 1/3 EV intervals) is

250

320

400

read the data sheet: "
Both TRI-X Pan Professional Films have an ISO speed
of 320/26°, and feature excellent tone gradation and brilliant
highlights. They are especially well suited to low-flare
interior lighting or flash illumination. They are also useful
for portraiture with low-contrast backlighting outdoors.
"

TheGreatGasMaskMan · Feb 26, 2019

wiltw said:
ASA 360 ?! But the usual progression (in 1/3 EV intervals) is

25

32

40

50

64

80

100

125

160

200

250

320

400

probably just a typo.

guangong · Feb 26, 2019

My mistake. Intended to write 320. Not 360. Wrote this on my iPad, and didn’t pay close attention. But no flub gets by alert APUG readers.
Another disadvantage using iPad is automatic spelling correction. Drives me crazy. Note: just now wanted to replace ‘spelling’ with ‘selling’. Ah, the wonders of modern electronics!

Found tri-x, how do I tell if it's 400 or 320

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency