Good old Tri-X

Tim Gray · Jan 27, 2012

Roger Cole said:
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?

I've not had any problems with T-Max films in tungsten lighting. I base my comments on the results that I've gotten and also a couple tidbits in the Kodak spec sheets for T-Max films. The first is obviously looking at the spectral sensitivity curves. T-Max films are different from Tri-X ones. Next up is this note in the T-Max spec sheets (located next to the spectral sensitivity curves):

The blue sensitivity of KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Films is slightly less than that of other Kodak panchromatic black-and-white films. This enables the response of this film to be closer to the response of the human eye. Therefore, blues may be recorded as slightly darker tones with this filma more natural rendition.

They also state this at the beginning of the document for T-Max:

Virtually no difference between the daylight and tungsten film speeds

Lastly, if you look at the recommended filter factors for T-Max films compared to Tri-X, you'll see that T-Max films need less correction for yellow filters yet more correction for blue filters.

I've heard people say that T-Max's spectral sensitive is like shooting with a built-in yellow filter. I don't know how true that is, but there is certainly a visible difference. The big thing I notice when looking at the spectral sensitivities of Tri-X, Plus-X, and T-Max is the large extension into the UV for Tri-X. Plus-X has relatively steep cutoff, while the curves for T-Max just don't show the UV sensitivity. I've certainly noted the difference between UV/blue sensitivity with Tri-X and Plus-X. I get a lot more white skies with unfiltered Tri-X than I do with Plus-X. I have a hunch that part of the Tri-X look probably has to do with the large blue + UV sensitivity, though I don't really have any empirical evidence for that statement other than the info stated above.

Harry Lime · Jan 27, 2012

Tim Gray said:
I've not had any problems with T-Max films in tungsten lighting. I base my comments on the results that I've gotten and also a couple tidbits in the Kodak spec sheets for T-Max films. The first is obviously looking at the spectral sensitivity curves. T-Max films are different from Tri-X ones. Next up is this note in the T-Max spec sheets (located next to the spectral sensitivity curves):

They also state this at the beginning of the document for T-Max:

Lastly, if you look at the recommended filter factors for T-Max films compared to Tri-X, you'll see that T-Max films need less correction for yellow filters yet more correction for blue filters.

I've heard people say that T-Max's spectral sensitive is like shooting with a built-in yellow filter. I don't know how true that is, but there is certainly a visible difference. The big thing I notice when looking at the spectral sensitivities of Tri-X, Plus-X, and T-Max is the large extension into the UV for Tri-X. Plus-X has relatively steep cutoff, while the curves for T-Max just don't show the UV sensitivity. I've certainly noted the difference between UV/blue sensitivity with Tri-X and Plus-X. I get a lot more white skies with unfiltered Tri-X than I do with Plus-X. I have a hunch that part of the Tri-X look probably has to do with the large blue + UV sensitivity, though I don't really have any empirical evidence for that statement other than the info stated above.

Could you use a color filter to bring the spectral sensitivity of TMAX closer to Tri-X?

thanks

Tim Gray · Jan 27, 2012

Theoretically, yes, there should be some filter that makes T-Max have a similar spectral sensitivity to Tri-X. In reality, probably not - nobody might make such a filter. It's much easier to take away then it is to add back. I'm guessing it's a lot more straightforward to filter Tri-X so it's similar to T-Max (just filter out some of the UV and blue... with a yellow filter).

In practice, this is one of the things that doesn't really bother me about these films. Both are panchromatic. Both react well to different filters. Both look like B&W film to me. Of course, I'm not using either of them in the kind of situation where super precise spectral sensitivity is important, nor am I particularly attuned to it. I mostly shoot 35 mm, handheld, in poor lighting a lot of the time

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 27, 2012

Tim Gray said:
Theoretically, yes, there should be some filter that makes T-Max have a similar spectral sensitivity to Tri-X. In reality, probably not - nobody might make such a filter. It's much easier to take away then it is to add back. I'm guessing it's a lot more straightforward to filter Tri-X so it's similar to T-Max (just filter out some of the UV and blue... with a yellow filter).

In practice, this is one of the things that doesn't really bother me about these films. Both are panchromatic. Both react well to different filters. Both look like B&W film to me. Of course, I'm not using either of them in the kind of situation where super precise spectral sensitivity is important, nor am I particularly attuned to it. I mostly shoot 35 mm, handheld, in poor lighting a lot of the time

Good stuff Tim, about color sensitivity and reproduction.

I personally haven't noticed that much of a difference in that respect, but haven't exactly looked for it either.
Even though I don't particularly care, part of me would find it interesting to study the blue sensitivity in two prints from two negatives, each from TMY-2 and 400TX.

But all this is getting beyond the purpose of the thread, to get those that love Tri-X confess their reasons for it.

clayne · Jan 27, 2012

I love Tri-X because I don't have to care about any of the above discussion to get interesting negatives. Note: don't get me wrong though Thomas/Tim - the other side of me is still interested in the above discussion ;-)

EI 250/D-76 1+1
EI 1600/XTOL 1+1

Etc, if the shot was good in the first place, the film won't be getting in the way. It will only compliment things.

holmburgers · Jan 27, 2012

I hear myself saying this, and am reminded of my late grandma, but...

This is such a nice discussion!

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 27, 2012

This is how I have started to feel about photography; the deeper I get into it, the less I want it to be technical.

The areas where I wish to experiment the most is with technique, seeing, framing, and printing. Tri-X just seems to fit perfectly into that scenario, and I'm as happy as I've ever been.

clayne said:
I love Tri-X because I don't have to care about any of the above discussion to get interesting negatives. Note: don't get me wrong though Thomas/Tim - the other side of me is still interested in the above discussion ;-)

EI 250/D-76 1+1
EI 1600/XTOL 1+1

Etc, if the shot was good in the first place, the film won't be getting in the way. It will only compliment things.

Tim Gray · Jan 27, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
This is how I have started to feel about photography; the deeper I get into it, the less I want it to be technical.

Totally agree. Though I might sound like I'm really into the technical side of things, I'm not. It's just because I'm a scientist by profession that I can't help but to glean certain information from the spec sheet when I look at it. Generally I just use a couple films (TMY, TX, TMZ), use the development times in the spec sheet for XTOL (the only dev I've ever really used) and go play.

Roger Cole · Jan 27, 2012

jp498 said:
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.

Bellows draw might be a factor in 4x5 but I doubt it at normal portrait distances. Not a factor in my 35mm and 120 where I've noticed the same thing.

My next thought was the lower UV sensitivity - outdoors, which my film speeds are calibrated for, I get effectively more exposure with Tri-X, then when I move indoors I have less UV. But that doesn't hold up, because I notice MORE difference with TMY(-2) than with Tri-X, and if that were the case I should notice less. Very weird. I can work with it by just giving a half stop more exposure, but it's annoying because indoors in tungsten light is precisely where I need the speed.

DREW WILEY · Jan 27, 2012

How in the heck does one call TMY400 flat? It has a steeper toe than TriX. Sounds like it was underdeveloped. The stuff positively shimmers when properly done. Wonderful depth of tones.
It does need to be metered more carefully.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 27, 2012

DREW WILEY said:
How in the heck does one call TMY400 flat? It has a steeper toe than TriX. Sounds like it was underdeveloped. The stuff positively shimmers when properly done. Wonderful depth of tones.
It does need to be metered more carefully.

That's my experience also. Exceptional latitude in exposure; I think 14 stops.
You just have to know what you're doing when you process the film, where slop is punished faster than with Tri-X.

DWThomas · Jan 27, 2012

I've been shooting Tri-X off and on since circa 1960 and have always felt as though I knew what it was going to do, sort of my old friend in the yellow box. I've lately been shooting it at about 250 and developing in HC110 1+63. A couple of years ago, I had a brief affair with Neopan 400, and though I liked what I saw, I had barely finished developing the roll when its discontinuation was announced!

Peter Schrager · Jan 27, 2012

trix

Try tmy @1:2 w xtol semi development @68 degrees

Clay2 · Jan 28, 2012

Oh Boy, good thread!
Been shooting Tri-x since late 1950's. Souped in Microdol, then the new Microdol-X, ha!
It was considered outrageously fast at 400 when normal fast lenses were f/2.8, ha!
The more adventurous of us even pushed it to 800 or, gasp!, 1600 in Diafine and Acufine.
Still have a 100' bulk roll of the 1960's version in the freezer. Must thaw some out and see if brings
back more memories. The new Tri-x is not the same but still great. Do shoot Ilford HP5+ as well.
Best regards,
/Clay

Bill Burk · Jan 28, 2012

Thomas,

Thanks for starting this thread.

I've avoided Tri-X my whole life. Not because I think it is bad. Just because the look I go for is a 4x5 look. My favorite 35mm film is Panatomic-X.

Four years ago I asked myself, why keep trying to make 35mm look like 35mm, why not just shoot 4x5?

I picked a 400 speed film because the larger negative provides sufficient detail per grain for my 11x14 enlargements. I went with TMY-2. I can't explain why I picked TMY-2 - I just had to pick something and I figured it was a good choice. In the spirit of "one camera, one film" I stuck with it. I picked up some TMAX 100 but I decided in the long run I don't need to go down to 100 speed because of the sufficient detail I get with TMY-2 at 4x5. I do a good amount handheld, so the added speed helps there.

I agree the T-grain is tighter, almost invisible. (Especially TMAX 100 at 4x5). But I don't think it looks digital. Chromogenic black and white film... Now that feels digital to me, and I would be interested how people feel about that (save that for another thread, another time)...

But I know many people love Tri-X at 4x5 for its smooth even tones (skies). And I know Tri-X would still provide more resolution than I need for my 4x5 results. (I reserve the right to switch to Tri-X at any time, maybe because of this thread).

p.s. I work for Kodak but the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC.

Roger Cole · Jan 28, 2012

Bill Burk said:
But I know many people love Tri-X at 4x5 for its smooth even tones (skies). And I know Tri-X would still provide more resolution than I need for my 4x5 results. (I reserve the right to switch to Tri-X at any time, maybe because of this thread).

Two different films though, the 400 Tri-X in 35mm and 120 versus 320 TXP in 4x5.

Crashbox · Jan 28, 2012

Bill Burk said:
[SNIP] My favorite 35mm film is Panatomic-X. [/SNIP]

MAJOR +1.

I had more success with Panatomic-X than any other; it was nothing short of phenomenal. Still have 600' of 35mm FX in the freezer...

As far as Tri-X goes, I never had any real success with it myself except in college when we shot it at EI 800 and souped it in Diafine. That combo was very good IMO. For me, I probably just didn't have the patience back then to use or experiment with Tri-X and other developers until I got it right.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 28, 2012

DWThomas said:
I've been shooting Tri-X off and on since circa 1960 and have always felt as though I knew what it was going to do, sort of my old friend in the yellow box. I've lately been shooting it at about 250 and developing in HC110 1+63. A couple of years ago, I had a brief affair with Neopan 400, and though I liked what I saw, I had barely finished developing the roll when its discontinuation was announced!

That's perhaps fortunate, about obsolescence of the Neopan 400 in 120 format, so you could continue using what you love so much.
I hope Kodak can sort out their problems, and that we can have Tri-X for a long time yet.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 28, 2012

Bill,

I understand your choice, for sure. We can't all love the same things.

Sometimes I wish I could have tried Panatomic-X when it was still made, but today it probably wouldn't make a difference. My style of shooting 35mm is 99% hand held, so I need a fast film. Obviously you don't.

If TMY-2 works for you, the 320TXP might be sufficiently different that changing films might do more damage than good, but once in a while it's fun to see for ourselves. That's why I'm shooting some HP5+, just in case we see a cease in manufacture of Kodak films.

On a side note: I really hope that Kodak can come to grips with their troubles, especially for all of the employees, you included.

- Thomas

Bill Burk said:
Thomas,

Thanks for starting this thread.

I've avoided Tri-X my whole life. Not because I think it is bad. Just because the look I go for is a 4x5 look. My favorite 35mm film is Panatomic-X.

Four years ago I asked myself, why keep trying to make 35mm look like 35mm, why not just shoot 4x5?

I picked a 400 speed film because the larger negative provides sufficient detail per grain for my 11x14 enlargements. I went with TMY-2. I can't explain why I picked TMY-2 - I just had to pick something and I figured it was a good choice. In the spirit of "one camera, one film" I stuck with it. I picked up some TMAX 100 but I decided in the long run I don't need to go down to 100 speed because of the sufficient detail I get with TMY-2 at 4x5. I do a good amount handheld, so the added speed helps there.

I agree the T-grain is tighter, almost invisible. (Especially TMAX 100 at 4x5). But I don't think it looks digital. Chromogenic black and white film... Now that feels digital to me, and I would be interested how people feel about that (save that for another thread, another time)...

But I know many people love Tri-X at 4x5 for its smooth even tones (skies). And I know Tri-X would still provide more resolution than I need for my 4x5 results. (I reserve the right to switch to Tri-X at any time, maybe because of this thread).

p.s. I work for Kodak but the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC.

Bill Burk · Jan 28, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Sometimes I wish I could have tried Panatomic-X when it was still made, but today it probably wouldn't make a difference. My style of shooting 35mm is 99% hand held, so I need a fast film.

I left something out of my story. I love the traditional grain of Panatomic-X. When TMAX-100 came out I didn't give it a fair shake. I have to admit, I was mad.

Fast-forward to four years ago... I knew that I had to pick a new film for 4x5 so I decided to give TMY-2 a real fair try. And in one key look I was going for, granite boulders, it delivered exactly what I was looking for. That made my mind up on the spot. Could I use Tri-X in 4x5? Probably. But as you say (and I get the feeling too) it may do more damage than good, simply because it would change the one camera one film idea.

Now when it comes to 35mm, I am free to choose a film. This isn't my main format so I can play with reckless abandon. Next time I pick up some film, I'll add some 35mm Tri-X to the order.

Slow film is fun in bright daylight and with flash. You get to see for yourself if Bokeh really exists.

Thanks for the kind thoughts

Trasselblad · Jan 28, 2012

FWIW, in my (limited) experience, Tri-X wins hands down when I need a 400ASA (or faster if pushed) film. After experimenting I also found that processed in seasoned Xtol gives me the look I'm after most of the times. Huge difference if compared to straight or 1+1 Xtol. You have to just love Tri-X. Hope it stays around for years to come.

paladin1420 · Jan 28, 2012

When I got back to film in 2007, I decided that to really get comfortable with a technique and a process I would shoot everything in Tri-X and develop in D-76 1+1. I figured I would do this as a base line before trying to branch out into other films or developers. Well, I haven't branched yet. Except for some Kodachrome just to say that I did, almost everything I've done is been with my old friend Tri-x and I haven't had too many reasons to go elsewhere.

brian steinberger · Jan 28, 2012

Thomas I gotta get in on this thread! As you know, since I began shooting black and white exclusively years ago I immediately got stuck on Neopan 400, in Xtol. Amazing stuff!! Again, R.I.P. Since its discontinuation it left me reeling, trying to replace the film I loved so much. I toyed with HP5, TMY-2, Delta 400, TXP (then it got discontinued as well), and Tri-x. I narrowed it down the HP5 and Tri-x. While still not the same as Neopan I would say Tri-x is very close. I now develop all my film in ID-11 1:1. Tri-x and HP5 are so similar yet so different once you start discussing them. Grain is different, they push differently, and they just feel different. I prefer Tri-x to HP5 for now, and am hopeful Kodak pulls through. Tri-x just has that wonderful tonality and very pleasing grain. Tri-x negatives have always printed so easily. Great film! Let's hope it sees its way through these tough times!

clayne · Jan 28, 2012

Just for the people wondering, afaik, or last I heard, 400pr neopan is only discontinued in 120.

JudyS · Jan 29, 2012

br549, how long are you processing that Tri-X @ 200 in D76 1:1? Thank you.

Good old Tri-X

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency