Leaving Tri-X

I was just prepping an order last night and it reminded me of this off paradox -- Neopan is MUCH cheaper than Tri-X (either variety) in 120 size, but significantly more-expensive than Tri-X in bulk 35mm. Weird.

c6h6o3 said:

Are you making your own from scratch, or are you buying the powders from Bluegrass?

Click to expand...

I bought mine from the Frugal Photographer in the gallon size, from what I gather from Frugal they get it from Bluegrass, but Bluegrass only sells in 5 gallon lots. Over the past couple of months I left several message at Bluegrass but the person who takes care of 777 never called me back. I don't know how old the kits are, maybe 20 years old or older, but it mixed up ok. I bought an Edwal 12 clone from the Photographer's Formulary.

Some of the recently published stuff about PPD/Glycin developers is a little misleading. A great resource would be a copy Edmund L. Lowe's book, "What You Want to Know About Developers, Fine Grain and Otherwise", 1939, Camera Craft.

Ansel Adams had high praise for the book.

Anyway, Lowe, who began Edwal, wrote an understandable, clear, and well supported examination of the whole issue of developers. Of particular interest, he detailed the purpose of Edwal 12, and gave suggested methods of using it to achieve different results. The developer is formulated, he wrote, for the typical Chicago conditions: one who took pictures in sunnier conditions were suggested the possibility of lowering the contrast of the developer by reducing the amount of glycin from 5 grams to 2 grams.

He also explained the misunderstood practice of using potassium thiocyanate.

Lowe's book is a snapshot of the apogee of pre WW2 craftsmanship. It provides context for the existence of Harvey's 777 ( a secret formulation derived from the Edwal 12 formula and Lowe's directions ! ).

Either developer makes a splendid developer, using reduced agitation methods, in either a seasoned and replenished system or one-shot.

It is messy: the PPD stains when you spill it. I always pour it in the sink, and have no trouble. And the results are very interesting, and handsome.

Good Luck

bjorke said:

I entirely agree. Heck, last year Kodak had a gallery show in Japan about Tri-X.

Tri-X is inextricably linked to the Kodak brand. The brand is the company. Without it they are just a bunch of buildings and half-baked business plans.

Click to expand...

Oh please. Tri-X is NOT inextricably linked to the brand. They are CHANGEING their brand. "Keep it digital" is the new branding statement. If you ask the average Joe on the street about the relationship between Tri-X and Kodak, they will have NO idea what Tri-X is. Kodak is now a company that, aside form medical imaging and professional graphics/printing serves two markets: consumers and OEMs. They are conceding the professional photography market, whether they realize it or not.

The show in Japan about Tri-X was not about brand, it was about .... well, I have no idea what it was about, but it wasn't about branding. Yesterday I was at Eastman House for the Weston exhibit. I had forgotten that the show included never-before-displayed 8x10 Kodachromes. DO YOU THINK KODAK IS GOING TO BRING BACK 8X10 KODACHROME? Oh, I do hope so, after all they were on display at the EASTMAN House!!!

I do think Tri-X is likely to be the las analog product to go, but the current CEO has absolutely no loyal to the products that helped build the Kodak brand, and he doesn't give a rat's ass about analog products unless they sweeten the stockholder's return.

Sorry to be cynical, but I'll be turning to HP5+, and maybe dabble with some other 400 speed films just to get an idea of the range of possibilities. I have some Tri-X in one camera right now, and maybe another roll or two knocking around. But that will be it. It's too much work to calibrate a film to throw away the time and energy. Unless I could afford a house full of Tri-X in various formats to get me to my deathbed (which I can't), I too don't see the point of sticking with it.

Earl

Earl Dunbar said:

Kodak is NOW about changing their brand.

Click to expand...

Kodak is actually spending $500 million doing this.

Fintan said:

Kodak is actually spending $500 million doing this.

Click to expand...

Fintan: I edited my post for clarity. My fingers were not working as well as my brain... or something.

Earl

Alternative to Tri-X

Fintan said:

Thanks for all the replies so far. I would be really obliged if you would stick to the question I asked about alternatives to Tri-X and not question my reasoning for changing.

Thanks,

Fintan

Click to expand...

I've found Fuji's Neopan 400 a wonderful "stand in" for Tri-X when I couldn't get it. It gives what basically everyone agrees on: a "Tri-X tone" with much finer grain. I've souped it in Rodinal and HC-110 (1:50) with a different tonal pallete from each, while both being pleasent.

I highly suggest the Neopan 400 for youm with no reservations.

Rolleijoe

df cardwell said:

Lowe's book is a snapshot of the apogee of pre WW2 craftsmanship. It provides context for the existence of Harvey's 777 ( a secret formulation derived from the Edwal 12 formula and Lowe's directions ! ).

Click to expand...

The formula usually cited as that for Harvey's 777 was developed by Morris Germain ARPS and can be found in his book "Darkroom Handbook and Formulary", (Ziff-Davis:1940). Edwal 12 and the Germain formula are similar in that they both use the same chemicals but differ in the amounts.

I have not used a roll of Tri-X in 25 years. No matter what Kodak does I expect my usage to be unchanged.