Kodak Tri-X 320TXP in 220 size rolls.

Keith Tapscott. · Mar 25, 2009

I visited the Silverprint site today and saw Kodak 320TXP for sale in 220 size rolls. Has anybody here used this film and what are your opinions of it for general use in medium-format?
I ordered some, so I had better like it as it`s the only film i could find in 220.

thisismyname09 · Mar 25, 2009

I've used the same film, except it was 120 rather than 220. It was expired by five years but still came out nicely. I can't really compare it to anything else as Tri-x is the only thing i've used for 35mm or medium format. :\ To me, the 35mm Tri-x always seemed a little bit too grainy, but you shouldn't have those problems with medium format negatives unless you're printing on huge paper.

jim appleyard · Mar 25, 2009

Hi Keith, I've used quite a bit of this lately, outdated from ebay. The film I got showed a bit of speed loss, but very useable. My initail trial in Rodinal, D-76 and Pyrocat HD were a bit lackluster and I got thin negs.

After reading DF Cardwell's suggestion that Diafine was good for outdated film, I tried it at EI 1000 and it worked very well. I used it to photograph interiors of old barns with very contrasty light.

The 220 length is very convenient!

I would suspect that fresh TXP would be good in just about any dev.

payral · Mar 25, 2009

Be carefull, Tri-X and TXP are different films. Tri-X (Iso 400) exist for 35 mm and 120. TXP (Iso 320) exist for 120, 220 and sheet film.Name can create confusion, film is different.

Anscojohn · Mar 25, 2009

Keith Tapscott. said:
I visited the Silverprint site today and saw Kodak 320TXP for sale in 220 size rolls. Has anybody here used this film and what are your opinions of it for general use in medium-format?
I ordered some, so I had better like it as it`s the only film i could find in 220.

********
I shot quite a bit of it at one time in my Pentax 6x7; all outdated. Used it for outdoor photography, treating it like I treat "regular" Tri-X--EI 200; souped in straight D23. I had trouble loading it on a ss 220 reel. Finally began wasting frames ten and eleven; then cut the roll in half in the dark and loaded the halves on regular 120 ss reels. I did not feel I was wasting much $ wasting the frames, as I was getting the film for about 25 cents a roll.
Then I read the instructions for the little ANSCO plastic reel and tank I have, which said that two rolls of 620 could be loaded on it. Sez I to meself, sez I, "If it can take two 120 rolls, I bet it can take one 220 roll." Voila!
I found I had to extend developing time about 10 percent for so much film in the Ansco tank.

chop61 · Mar 25, 2009

I took about 10 rolls of TXP 220 with me to Vietnam, mostly for convenience, didn't want to reload so much. Like John, i exposed it at EI 200. I think it's a little less contrasty that regular Tri X, with a little longer developing time in HC110 Dil B. It's the only B&W film available in 220 now, I believe.

jim appleyard · Mar 25, 2009

I found a Nikkor (sp?) 220 tank & reel set on ebay. It's really just an oversized 120 and it makes loading 220 just as easy as 120, only a little longer.

SuzanneR · Mar 25, 2009

TXP is engineered as a studio film. It's been my experience that it sings in light that doesn't have a lot of contrast. I find when I'm shooting outside in full sun, the regular Tri-x is a better choice, but unfortunately is not available in 220. It'd be nice to have both available in 220, but alas.... *sigh* because they complement each other nicely.

As said, it's quite different from the regular tri-x, but having those extra frames are very handy. Sometimes you have to bend a film to your will!!

Keith Tapscott. · Mar 25, 2009

Thanks for all the replies. I am going to make a simplified ringaround test with the first roll with the lightmeter set to the recommended ISO and process to the Kodak time for D-76. I will make some bracketed exposures of + and - 1 E.V step in half f/stop increments to see which frame seems to provide the best density which will help me to choose a personal E.I. for the other rolls.
Five exposures to choose from E.I. 160 to 640 should hopefully help me to get it fairly close to optimum. I find that most Ilford films work well at their box speeds (except Pan F+) for me while Kodak 100TMX seems to work best at one-third E.V step slower than box speed, or at least it does when I use it in 4x5 Readyloads.
I`m looking forward to trying 320TXP.

mike c · Mar 26, 2009

Just started using TXP 320 in 22o rolls,working out development times for HC110 1:63 , looks ok so far. Had to do something with that 220 back thats been lying around for so long.

Jose A Martinez · Mar 26, 2009

I use it a lot... in my Mamiya 7 and Rollei 6008... give me 20 shots in Mamiya en 32 in rollei 645 format... The film is great because is almost "clear", bpf very low. It's hard to find in US, and in Mexico no way, I have to ask my US friends to bring me some when they come.

mike c · Mar 27, 2009

Jose, can you order to freestyle for Mexico?

Tom Duffy · Mar 27, 2009

Tri-x 320 is way different than Tri-x 400, as had been said. The tri-x 320 in 220 is the same film as tri-x sheet film. It gives a very different tonal scale, with strong blacks to whites, rather than a tonal scale of grays as with the 400 film. In high contrast light there is considerable danger of blowing out the highlights. Many Tri-x 320 advocates, of whom I am one, use it with a compensating developer such as pyro or dilute HC110. I rate it at 100 to 160 and develop to take care of the highlights.

BTW, the 220 film doesn't have paper backing on the film, only on the leader and trailer of the roll. The film lies flatter in the film plane. This is noticeable when shooting with wide fstops.

The best reels I've found to load 220 film are the plastic reels from jobo. the more macho stainless steel reels for 220 are an exercise in frustration.

Take care,
Tom

mike c · Mar 28, 2009

Tom, I've developed the first half of a 220roll for 12min in HC110 68 f. it came out a little thin,then the second half for 15 min looks better more dense.Have not contact printed the second half yet. also 2min presoak in distilled water. Shot the flim 320asa and 175asa alternating every other frame. 15min with 1:63 dilution is that close to what your using?
mike

Keith Tapscott. · Mar 28, 2009

I have downloaded the technical data from Kodak for this film. I noticed that the recommended times for D-76 stock is 9 minutes and D-76 diluted 1:1 is 12`:45" at 68*F (20*C). The sheet-film version however, has considerably shorter times, even shorter than 400TX.
I might try using the developer at full-strength considering the long-ish times required.

Tom Duffy · Mar 28, 2009

Hi Mike. I can't give you reliable development times. I haven't used HC110 since I started using Pyrocat HD in 2003, I think it was. I also tend to overexpose and underdevelop pretty substantially. My typical exposure in contrasty sunlight is 1/60 at f16.

Ansel Adams used dilute HC110 with Tri-X 320. you might find some details in one of his books.

Here's an excellent HC110 website with quite a bit of info if you haven't seen it yet:

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

Take care,
Tom

mike c · Mar 28, 2009

WOW!,about asa 60, thats quite a drop in speed.Ya I have Ansels books ,been awhile since I've looked at them,have to do a review. Well we all reach our own system of processing eventually,just tiring to cut corners. thanks for the web site,gotta go to Riverside to see the show bye now.
mike

Kodak Tri-X 320TXP in 220 size rolls.

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency