Kodak Tri-X Pro 320 vs Kodak TMAX 400

[cjbecker]

Off topic but.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/do-you-miss-txp-tri-x-320.73778/

 

[DREW WILEY]

I wouldn't classify Foma 400 as actually in the same speed category, and certainly not in the same quality category as the others. But it's obviously out there, and at a lower price point than the other. I tried it once, was unimpressed. But it does have some fans. I don't know if I'll ever try Bergger Pancro 400. At a higher price point, it's hard to imagine a better film than TMax 400.

But at this point, feedback on Bergger 400 is rather scant or somewhat negative, so hopefully more of an actual user track record will appear over time. Might be worthwhile to start a separate inquiry thread on that film in particular, and see what pops up. But I'd prefer real sheet film comparisons from seasoned users, not just more web "me too" remakes of a press release. And that would be requisite is someone want to know how it compares to Tri-X 320. I has a similar curve; and it's nice to know that they've included PMK pyro recommended dev time, my own favorite developer. Their description of it as having "classical grain" is more a marketing designation than anything revealing. That only tells us that its's not tabular grain, but two layers more basic. I presume its specially manufactured for them by Harman like their paper, but don't really know.

 

[Ayne]

Hi, the Tri-X Pro 320 is available for less money, aside from that which film would you recommend for head and shoulder, traditional portraiture?

Thank you.

Use what you can find and get ahold of, Txpro is a lovely film for portrait making. Don't listen to the noise.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Noise ??? What's firing buckshot sized grain out of a blunderbuss sound like? That describes Triassic X. Not every one likes that look. Some do.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi, the Tri-X Pro 320 is available for less money, aside from that which film would you recommend for head and shoulder, traditional portraiture?

Thank you.

Tmax400 will give you smoother kin tones.

 

[markbau]

Noise ??? What's firing buckshot sized grain out of a blunderbuss sound like? That describes Triassic X. Not every one likes that look. Some do.

I shot quite a lot of 120 TXP in a 6x7 back in the 80's. Up to 11 x 14 grain wasn't really noticeable. I had a love/hate relationship with it. It was a dream under strobes but outdoors things could get funky.

 

[Ayne]

Noise ???

Yes, noise.

 

[faberryman]

My suggestion is that you buy a 10-pack of Tri-X Pro 320 and a 10-pack of TMax 400, shoot a few sample portraits, process and print them, and decide which you prefer.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I wouldn't classify Foma 400 as actually in the same speed category, and certainly not in the same quality category as the others.

I've used a lot of Foma 400, and a little Tri-X 320. The Foma, at least in my process, is very comparable in true speed to the 320 Tri-X, and has similar grain. Plus, I can afford enough of it to learn how to handle it well.

 

[pentaxuser]

Grain can be brutally evident at only 4X enlargement with TX 320. It is almost invisible in 6X enlargement factor with TMY400. developer. The original question was about a SUBSTITUTE for TX320. There really isn't any except for the ongoing availability of that product itself in sheet sizes. .

Grain can be brutally evident at only 4X enlargement with TX 320. It is almost invisible in 6X enlargement factor with TMY400. HP5 has rather coarse grain, but whether it's conspicuous or not depends on the specific developer. The original question was about a SUBSTITUTE for TX320. There really isn't any except for the ongoing availability of that product itself in sheet sizes. But there are obviously two options in the general speed category, each with their own signature or look.

I had thought that we had established that the OP must have been talking about sheet film so I am unsure why in 4x5 the grain can be brutally evident at only a 4X enlargement

I have had a look at the original question and it is as follows:
Hi, the Tri-X Pro 320 is available for less money, aside from that which film would you recommend for head and shoulder, traditional portraiture?

I can't see why the above pertains to a substitute for TX320? Interestingly someone sent the OP an example for which he was thanked and then the OP has taken no further active part in the thread so presumably he was satisfied with what he got at that stage. The rest of the thread has been for the edification of the rest of us

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Even a 16X20 print enlarged from 4X5 sheet film involving TX320 tends to exhibit very conspicuous grain in untextured areas. That's only 4X. Whether you like that or not is personal esthetic choice. But Tri-X is exceptionally grainy for a film currently still in production. Cry and stamp you feet and complain, "noise", all you want. Doesn't change a thing. It's obvious. So if someone wants an alternative as similar as possible to TX320, conspicuous grain would be one of the characteristics.

If you want something high acutance but with much finer grain, go TMax400. If you want exceptional acutance with large blended "watercolor grain" rather than the pepper kind, go HP5 and develop it in staining pyro. Choices. Is it against the law to have a selection of products in the same general speed range?

markbau - you don't get it. Tri-X 320 is a different product only available in sheet film. It doesn't even come in 120. Therefore your results with 120 aren't applicable in this case, though that 120 Tri-X 400 is itself ridiculously grainy compared to TMax. Just depends on the look you want.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

markbau - you don't get it. Tri-X 320 is a different product only available in sheet film. It doesn't even come in 120.

It used to — he did mention he was talking about the 80s. Hasn't been discontinued that long, I still have four unused 220 rolls from 2008.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

On my experience, Foma/Arista 400 can be comparable to TriX P 320 speed. Foma 400 feel most comfortable at 320 instead of 400. Also, Foma 400 on 120 or 4x5 is a different beast that on 35mm. Once I bought a 100ft of Foma 400 and didnt like it much, but have run over 20 rolls of Foma 400 in 120 (and some 4x5) and I've been pleased with the results. Had a lot of keepers.

Marcelo

 

[markbau]

markbau - you don't get it. Tri-X 320 is a different product only available in sheet film. It doesn't even come in 120. Therefore your results with 120 aren't applicable in this case, though that 120 Tri-X 400 is itself ridiculously grainy compared to TMax. Just depends on the look you want.

I'm not sure what I "don't get". Tri-X Professional 320 (TXP) was available in 120 for many years but has not been available in 120 for a decade or two. Just to be clear. In the 1980's Kodak produced, in 120 format, TX (400) and TXP (320) If you don't believe me have a look at AA's book "The Negative where he talks about 35mm TX and 120 Tri-X Prof. The 120 TXP was, as far as I could tell, the same emulsion as TXP on sheet film. TXP on sheet films was obviously on a thicker base. My observations for 120 TXP are perfectly applicable to TXP in sheet films as I believe they had identical characteristic curves.
That being said, the way Kodak have changed TX over the years I wouldn't be surprised if they have changed TXP which would mean it's a very different film to what it was 20 years ago.

Attached is a scan of a 120 neg on TXP film. This neg has been printed to 11' x 14" with no discernible grain.

 

[pentaxuser]

Clearly our definition of what constitutes "conspicuous grain", "ridiculously grainy" etc varies. Indeed we get close to there being an almost or may be completely "scientific" definition of conspicuous and ridiculous.

From there the discussion can only go downhill in its tone. It's where I get off the train before it crashes and causes all of us, protagonists and antagonists, damage

pentaxuser

 

[markbau]

Clearly our definition of what constitutes "conspicuous grain", "ridiculously grainy" etc varies. Indeed we get close to there being an almost or may be completely "scientific" definition of conspicuous and ridiculous.

From there the discussion can only go downhill in its tone. It's where I get off the train before it crashes and causes all of us, protagonists and antagonists, damage

pentaxuser

Well said pentaxuser. I remember using 35mm Tech Pan back in the 80's, developed in Technidol. The negs were great but somehow they looked a little "too perfect". I felt the same when TMax first came out. Sure it was pretty much grainless but it looked too perfect. It didn't look like a photo. Photos have grain, just like paintings have brush strokes, they are part of the language. Anyway, as you say, some people love grain (I'm particularly thinking of early 35mm Kenna prints) and some people abhor grain. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[pentaxuser]

markbau, well, your 11x14 pic looks pretty grainless to me, even in the lighter sky areas but of course it is a scan and I suppose you can do anything with a scan

pentaxuser

 

[markbau]

markbau, well, your 11x14 pic looks pretty grainless to me, even in the lighter sky areas but of course it is a scan and I suppose you can do anything with a scan

pentaxuser

I just posted this scan to show that TXP was once available on 120m film. Apart from a curve adjustment, nothing was "enhanced"

 

[Duceman]

While I can not comment on the specs, I sure do miss 320TXP when it was offered in 220 rolls.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Get copies of Kodak's own contemporaneous Black and White film guide books. That should clear up all this mere rumor nonsense. Hard specs sheets with curves and so forth are in there. But it's certainly possible that minor changes with emulsions occurred en-route, which could have been out of sequence with publication dates. Otherwise, some tiny little scanned web posting is hardly convincing about grain characteristics. The usual non-evidence. At lot, of course, has to do with specific developers.

 

[markbau]

Get copies of Kodak's own contemporaneous Black and White film guide books. That should clear up all this mere rumor nonsense. Hard specs sheets with curves and so forth are in there. But it's certainly possible that minor changes with emulsions occurred en-route, which could have been out of sequence with publication dates. Otherwise, some tiny little scanned web posting is hardly convincing about grain characteristics. The usual non-evidence. At lot, of course, has to do with specific developers.

I didn’t post the scan to show anything about grain, I posted it because you seemed to believe that TXP never existed as a roll film. This was your quote:
markbau - you don't get it. Tri-X 320 is a different product only available in sheet film. It doesn't even come in 120. (End quote)

 

[MattKing]

There is no doubt that it would be helpful when discussing films to specify what formats are being considered.
It would also be helpful to differentiate between films that are currently available, and films that were once available but are no longer are available new.
And when it comes to a film like TX-320, it would be incredibly helpful to specify both the format and whether the formerly but no longer manufactured formats are in consideration because of old stock still being around.
But what is the point about arguing about any of this, when we still haven't heard from the OP what format he is asking about????
Even if we can guess.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

But what is the point about arguing about any of this, when we still haven't heard from the OP what format he is asking about????
Even if we can guess.

He does say in his description that he is a large format user, and since it's the only format in which TXP-320 is currently available, the guess seems pretty accurate. But you are absolutely right in mentioning that specifying which format is being discussed is helpful in order to avoid endless off-subject digressions.

 

[faberryman]

The OP is a large format shooter, said that Tri-X Pro 320 was one of his choices, and said it is available. Tri-X 320 is currently available only in 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10.

 

[pentaxuser]

But what is the point about arguing about any of this, when we still haven't heard from the OP what format he is asking about????
Even if we can guess.

Matt, I suspect there is a good reason for this absence of any further communication from the OP to which I alluded in an earlier post, namely he ceased to see any purpose in so doing

Clarification only assists us in resolving aspects of the discussion as it now appears and does not serve to help the "debate" to continue

pentaxuser