Good old Tri-X

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 26, 2012

I agree with everything you said, except for the added texture in my prints, which is more significant to me than it seems to be to you.
That goes in the department of personal flavor. But TMY-2 sure looks like film to me too, with lots of beautiful character, contrast, and substance. It is also very flexible, and like you I don't find it any more difficult to process than Tri-X. It honestly puzzles me why some find it to look clinical and 'digital', but each to their own and I hope we can all find something we like.

Let me make it clear, I would happily continue shooting TMY-2, and if it wasn't for Tri-X, I would. The difference between them is not that great, a lot less than most folks make it out to be (to my eyes anyway). That's all. I was just looking to see what other Tri-X lovers held as their reason for rating it above all other films.

So, happy shooting everyone! It was fun to read your responses.

Tim Gray said:
It is a great film. However, I've gone in the other direction as you. I find TMY-2 to be fantastic. Just as flexible in different lighting conditions in my mind. I never got the 'fussy' nature of T-Max; I pretty much treat it exactly as I did Tri-X and get very useable negatives. I also don't get the 'digital' comments about TMY. Looks like film to me.

Tri-X does have a bit more grain and texture for me, but often not enough. Overall, I find it to be pretty fine grained. The increase in texture is little enough that when I am going for that, I often grab TMZ instead.

Maybe I need to change my processing

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 26, 2012

MaximusM3 said:
There isn't anything else like it, period. Versatile, pliable, incredible dynamic range, tone, grain. There is nothing it cannot do and do well. What more do you need?

Tri-X is the perfect companion for me. True dat. But, how about a cup of great coffee?

Tim Gray · Jan 26, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I agree with everything you said, except for the added texture in my prints, which is more significant to me than it seems to be to you.
That goes in the department of personal flavor.

I actually like more texture in my prints, but at 11x14 or smaller, I don't really find that much more texture in my prints using Tri-X. And I never print larger thatnt 11x14. I think it might be my processing in XTOL? I don't know. It's actually something that's bugged me for quite a while, getting a bit more texture, which is why I shot Tri-X for the first 3-4 years I shot film, but it never gave me the extra grit I wanted. So I turned to TMZ for my fix I've toyed with trying Rodinal, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

MaximusM3 · Jan 26, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Tri-X is the perfect companion for me. True dat. But, how about a cup of great coffee?

Coffee? Sure...lately, I have been drinking two cups in the morning and then save the urine to develop my Tri-X in it. Talk to Nanian about the recipe. I'm out

M Stat · Jan 26, 2012

Ah yes, Tri-X film. I've got a freezer full of it in sizes from 35mm to 8"x10". I used to get it in the fifty sheet boxes of 8"x10" when it cost around $1.90 per sheet. Now it goes for around six dollars per sheet of 8"x10", in ten sheet boxes. Alas! Some time ago at an APUG gathering, I showed some cyanotypes which were originally photographed with 35mm Tri-X. One character in the group asked bluntly "What's with the grain?" This was at an APUG meeting mind you. I think he was a digital provacateur, or what I like to call a "digittante" (combination of the words digital and dilettante).

By the way, Tri-X is very good when processed in HC110 at double the dilution B for seven to seven and a half minutes.

mdarnton · Jan 26, 2012

I made that comment about digital-like sterility, and people apparently don't agree. Here's what happened for me: I was doing 6x7 copy work with Plus-X developed in D76. When TMax films came out, I discovered that the 400 version in the Tmax dev was a straight-across sub for Plus-X in D76 in that application--virtually the same grain and close enough tonality to work. When I tried it in 35mm all of the texture I liked so much in Tri-X was gone, along with development latitude. In the studio, with relatively flat lighting I could control TMax. In real life it just didn't have the latitude of Tri-X, and little errors in development time simply wrecked everything.

I'm genuinely confused by folks who seem to not be able to tell Tri-X and TMax 400 apart--that certainly wasn't the point Kodak was trying to make when they brought it out--if it had been, why would they bother? They sold it based on much finer grain, and better sharpness. If people aren't getting that difference, I think they had better look at what they're doing wrong! Really.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 26, 2012

mdarnton said:
I'm genuinely confused by folks who seem to not be able to tell Tri-X and TMax 400 apart--that certainly wasn't the point Kodak was trying to make when they brought it out--if it had been, why would they bother? They sold it based on much finer grain, and better sharpness. If people aren't getting that difference, I think they had better look at what they're doing wrong! Really.

This discussion is going somewhere that I wish could be avoided, but here's my reply anyway.

If I develop TMax 400 'by the book' and Tri-X 400 'by the book' - then they behave differently. But I can coax TMax 400 into looking like Tri-X, except for the texture part. Tonality is much more important to me than anything else technical about a print; that's always priority one. And in an 8x10 print from 35mm I can't see much grain with either film, and they appear equally sharp, so all I have to do is adjust the tonality. I do this with exposure and film development. I expose Tri-X at 250-320, and TMY-2 at 400 to get a similar toe, and then with TMY-2 I slow down agitation in order to bend a slight shoulder, and voila - tonality like Tri-X. Works with Rodinal, Xtol, and Edwal 12 (those are the ones I've done it with).

I find that Tri-X is not as forgiving as TMY-2 in exposure (TMY has longer straight line), and Tri-X is more forgiving than TMY-2 in processing in that it reacts slower to development alterations such as development time and agitation frequency.

Then going to 16x20 print size, the natural grain of Tri-X becomes more apparent, and whether you like it or not is entirely subjective.

Thanks much for your detailed reply. I really appreciate your view of it.

Tim Gray · Jan 26, 2012

mdarnton said:
I'm genuinely confused by folks who seem to not be able to tell Tri-X and TMax 400 apart--that certainly wasn't the point Kodak was trying to make when they brought it out--if it had been, why would they bother? They sold it based on much finer grain, and better sharpness. If people aren't getting that difference, I think they had better look at what they're doing wrong! Really.

Oh, I see a difference. TMY resolves a LOT better than Tri-X. And it is finer grained. I just find that Tri-X is pretty fine grained too. There's some other differences like spectral sensitivity, etc., and while I could see that is important to some people, it's not something I worry about too much. As far as the grain and texture, here were some prints I made when I first tested TMY-2 (first time I ever developed a roll of it as well):

http://125px.com/articles/photography/film/txtmytmz/400tx-print-crop-med.jpg
http://125px.com/articles/photography/film/txtmytmz/400-2tmy-print-crop-med.jpg

The first is Tri-X, the second is TMY-2. These are prints from what would have been a 26" by 19" print off of a 35mm negative. The Tri-X is grainier, no doubt. Just not as much as I expected. It's obviously less noticeable on smaller prints, at least with my processes. That's where I'm coming from.

Thomas - If I'm sidetracking your thread too much, just let me know.

Sundowner · Jan 26, 2012

You can talk about resolution and grain growth and a bunch of other stuff that has NOTHING to do with a good image all you like, but none of those terms adequately describe the true "feeling" inside a film. Tri-X...it's edgy, but still has a softness to it. I can see texture in the prints, no matter the developer. I use HC-110 and get some wonderful tonality out of it when I rate the film at about 160 or so (normal for my cameras). When I shoot it at 1600 and let it soak in Diafine...well, it gets downright eerie looking...it just jumps out and grabs you. The film has depth and substance...and most importantly: its character synchronizes with the work that I'm doing right now. So that's why I love it.

artonpaper · Jan 26, 2012

Tri-X 400 to me is far superior to HP5. Especially for pushing and pulling. TX has changed over the years and now I can truly expose it at 400. In the past I always rated it at 200. I too like TMY now. I develop it in HC-110 an get a sharp even grain. I've been shooting it in all formats. One of my students was shooting Efke and I'm curious about it. Somewhere I have 20 x 24s from the old TX negs developed in HC-110B that were shot my M2. The grain is gorgeous, like diamonds.

mdarnton · Jan 26, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson;1292452 If I develop TMax 400 'by the book' and Tri-X 400 'by the book' - then they behave differently. But I can coax TMax 400 into looking like Tri-X said:
Yes, I can certainly live with that idea. I rebel against the concept that they are The Same, that's all.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 26, 2012

mdarnton said:
Yes, I can certainly live with that idea. I rebel against the concept that they are The Same, that's all.

They certainly are not the same. Only somewhat similar. Sometimes I wish I could get my hands on a few hundred rolls of Tri-X the way it was back in the day when it became famous, only fresh. That would be a fun experiment, for sure.

Mark Crabtree · Jan 26, 2012

Tri-X has been my mainstay for, well, a long time. I've flirted with TMY off and on since it first came out.

After years of study, I have finally determined the difference between these films:

TMax is Ginger and Tri-X as Mary Ann.

I'm sticking with Mary Ann. I had some exciting times with TMax, but not worth the trouble (to me).

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 26, 2012

Mark Crabtree said:
Tri-X has been my mainstay for, well, a long time. I've flirted with TMY off and on since it first came out.

After years of study, I have finally determined the difference between these films:

TMax is Ginger and Tri-X as Mary Ann.

I'm sticking with Mary Ann. I had some exciting times with TMax, but not worth the trouble (to me).

BradleyK · Jan 26, 2012

While Ilford's PanF Plus and FP4 won me over years ago for my medium and large format shooting, the Tri-X vs HP-5 issue has yet to be settled. While I use the latter two interchangeably, my preference, at least for 35mm shooting (read Leica) remains Tri-X. The reason? Some have suggested the unique tonal signature of the film, some its forgiving character, some its versatility.... For me, it's a certain "look" I get, a "look" that after 30-odd years of shooting with the film that I am hard-pressed to describe.

GraemeMitchell · Jan 26, 2012

Skin tones are it. No other film I've found does what tri-x does w/ skin.

I'm glad to see the HC-110 + tx400 love on here. The bees knees imo.

BTW, for those of you who want to try a film more akin to the older traditional emulsions, I suggest Neopan 400. I imagine it's more like the tri-x of yore w/ the steeper S curve and rounder shoulder. I discovered it when Freestlye had a bunch shortdated this summer for <$2 a roll, and when I shot it I felt transported to the 60s, examples (in HC-110b) http://graememitchell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/beach_16.jpg and http://graememitchell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/beach_01.jpg

Roger Cole · Jan 26, 2012

Tim Gray said:
Oh, I see a difference. TMY resolves a LOT better than Tri-X. And it is finer grained. I just find that Tri-X is pretty fine grained too. There's some other differences like spectral sensitivity, etc., and while I could see that is important to some people, it's not something I worry about too much.

I haven't actually looked at spectral sensitivity information on the two films, but when T-Max came out I found that the same meters that gave me consistently good exposures with old style films gave me good exposures with TMY only in daylight, but gave me considerable underexposure in tungsten. This is significant for me in 35mm, and something I found recently with TMY-2 in 4x5 too - some indoor portraits were underexposed, looks like they could be a whole stop under, but maybe 1/2-1 stop.

Is this something verified in the spectral curves?

Roger Cole · Jan 26, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
They certainly are not the same. Only somewhat similar. Sometimes I wish I could get my hands on a few hundred rolls of Tri-X the way it was back in the day when it became famous, only fresh. That would be a fun experiment, for sure.

Try some TMZ. You won't get the shorter range and shoulder/toe but you'll get something much closer to the grain of old Tri-X.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 26, 2012

Roger,

I have tried TMZ. It has much higher resolution than any iteration of Tri-X, same as Delta 3200 has resolution equal to Fp4+, believe it or not.

I love TMZ. It prints wonderfully. My sentiment was more romantic than anything.

- Thomas

Roger Cole said:
Try some TMZ. You won't get the shorter range and shoulder/toe but you'll get something much closer to the grain of old Tri-X.

TriXfan · Jan 26, 2012

Been using it since 1972, with Edwal Fg-7, plus a level coffee scoop full of Sodium Sulfite as recommended by Bill Pierce.
((please kodak, don't take my tri-x away))

Roger Cole · Jan 26, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Roger,

I have tried TMZ. It has much higher resolution than any iteration of Tri-X, same as Delta 3200 has resolution equal to Fp4+, believe it or not.

I love TMZ. It prints wonderfully. My sentiment was more romantic than anything.

- Thomas

Got it.

I get results I like a lot with TMZ at 3200, and results good enough I won't hesitate to use it at 6400, but they're both grainier and grittier than any Tri-X. I may have to try it at 400-800 though and see what I get. Doing that with Delta 3200 (which I've never shot at less than 3200) could also be just the ticket in 6x6 to get visible but not obtrusive grain in 8x8 to 11x11 prints. Tri-X grain is all but invisible in those sizes from 6x6.

Tim Gray · Jan 26, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Roger,

I have tried TMZ. It has much higher resolution than any iteration of Tri-X, same as Delta 3200 has resolution equal to Fp4+, believe it or not.

I love TMZ. It prints wonderfully. My sentiment was more romantic than anything.

- Thomas

Sounds like we ARE on the same page You said you run Tri-X in Rodinal, PMK, and XTOL. Is the choice solely based on curve shape, or do you get significantly different grain and texture from them?

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 27, 2012

Tim Gray said:
Sounds like we ARE on the same page You said you run Tri-X in Rodinal, PMK, and XTOL. Is the choice solely based on curve shape, or do you get significantly different grain and texture from them?

Tim,

I have run Tri-X in those three developers, but now only use Xtol (replenished). There's enough flexibility in that developer to counteract different types of lighting. Long development times with long agitation intervals when I shoot indoor portraits, for example (can't do that with PMK), and 1m or 30s intervals when light is flat and slightly underexposed negatives. So, it's just a combination of exposure and development.
I try to shoot an entire roll in similar lighting, so that I can benefit fully from such changes in development, but admittedly, some frames end up being compromised and harder to print.

All my film developing activity is based on getting negs that are easy to interpret, and that print in the darkroom with minimal waste (paper has gotten so damned expensive, and I hate to waste). Texture wise, I find Rodinal and PMK similar, grain wise I probably get more from PMK. Both are really sharp. But Xtol gives me enough of all that that I can just relax and use one single developer.
I print 35mm with a diffusion enlarger, and most of my negs make a nice straight Grade 2.5 or Grade 3 print, and that leaves a lot of room for interpretation and creative printing as well as slight exposure errors.

- Thomas

Tim Gray · Jan 27, 2012

Thanks for the info Thomas!

jp498 · Jan 27, 2012

Thomas is right that tri-x and tmy2 are both excellent films and can be both different and made to work similarly. My aesthetics differ in that I prefer the texture to be primarily derived from the output medium rather than the film grain. Glossy rc paper versus ilford art 300 versus cyanotype on arches platine versus stonehenge versus fomatone mg classic, etc... So, I mostly shoot tmy2 for it's exposure versatility and minimal grain. Both tri-x and tmy2 can make nice tones with practice that you won't find if you're shooting a random film choice every week.

Tmy2 demands consistent developing. I can handle that. If you agitate your tank 3 times at the start of the minute, you will have noticeably different results than a single inversion at the start of each minute. 4 degrees off temperature or 60 seconds too short will make for different results too. That, and the longer fixing times are why it wasn't popular in school when it first came out, and Simon @ Ilford mentioned the popularity of carrying on what you learned in school.

Unlike Roger, I haven't observed tmy2 to any less sensitive to tungsten light, but I haven't tried comparison tests. It could also be a bellows draw issue or mechanical issue as well if it hasn't received comparison tests.

Good old Tri-X

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency