old Tri X equal ?

[Jayd]

What current film is equalivelent to Kodak tri X before Kodak gave it the Tmax treatment ?
I want the sharp crisp Tri X we used for decades ! The film great masters used.
Kodak just had to cheapen and dull a ICON of the photographic world!
and make it like T Max cheap, mushy, nasty, stuff it is.

Refrence: Darkroom Cook Book By Stephen Anchell 2008

Jay

 

[2F/2F]

Huh?

 

[msage]

Jay
I have been using Tri-x for 35+ years in 120 to 8x10 formats. It is and remains my favorite film of all time. It has changed, as all films seem to, but not to the degree you claim IMHO.
There a number of similar film, HP-5 comes to mind, try it or others.
Maybe you didn't mean to convey, but your post struck me as venomous.
Michael

What current film is equalivelent to Kodak tri X before Kodak gave it the Tmax treatment ?
I want the sharp crisp Tri X we used for decades ! The film great masters used.
Kodak just had to cheapen and dull a ICON of the photographic world!
and make it like T Max cheap, mushy, nasty, stuff it is.

Refrence: Darkroom Cook Book By Stephen Anchell 2008

Jay

 

[Chazzy]

Jay
I have been using Tri-x for 35+ years in 120 to 8x10 formats. It is and remains my favorite film of all time. It has changed, as all films seem to, but not to the degree you claim IMHO.
There a number of similar film, HP-5 comes to mind, try it or others.
Maybe you didn't mean to convey, but your post struck me as venomous.
Michael

No venom from Jay--he was quoting Anchell. It's hardly surprising that someone would read that in the Darkroom Cookbook and have questions.

 

[Ian Grant]

Tri-X has changed and been improved a great many times since it's introduction in 1940. Each time for the better.

I have found your reference in the DCB but Steve is just saying it's become another good fine grained film, rather than a gutsy grainy film, most photographers have always wanted optimal quality & minimum grain which is what Ilford, Kodak & Fuji have been working towards. It's called progress.

If you want the grain then use Tmax 3200 or Delta 3200.

Ian

 

[msage]

My apologies to Jay!
Michael

No venom from Jay--he was quoting Anchell. It's hardly surprising that someone would read that in the Darkroom Cookbook and have questions.

 

[2F/2F]

FWIW, the "reference" in the OP was added after the fact.

Additionally, it is thoroughly improper use of a reference. "Kodak gave it the Tmax treatment" and "Kodak just had to cheapen and dull a ICON of the photographic world! (sic) and make it like T Max cheap, mushy, nasty, stuff it is." are not statements contained in the Darkroom Cookbook. They are dramatic statements of opinion as fact based on your heavy-handed interpretation something you read in the book. You include references so readers can check your facts and see your sources if you are proposing a theory, not as an after-the-fact excuse to state strong opinions as fact.

You *obviously* have never used T-Max, as it is far from cheap, mushy, and nasty. It strives to be, and *is*, entirely the opposite. I personally don't like it or Delta (except 3200) for many reasons (mostly because it is just too good; too technical looking and too much straight line on the curve), but it is not either of those things you named.

It sounds like what you actually *want* is cheap, mushy and nasty: old Tri-X. Take the current tri-x, or any other currently available 400 film, and mess around with it. You can get it as cheap, mushy, and nasty as you would like. Hint: try gross overexposure and long developing times with heavily dilute developer.

Also, I am assuming you mean Tri-X 400 in 35mm.

Oh, I forgot to mention one film in particular: If you want a good Tri-X look, try Arista Premium 400.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I know what Anchell wrote about Tri-X, that it now was almost indistinguishable from TMY-2 (Tmax 400).

I took that with a grain of salt, for two reasons. Tmax is fabulous film. It is very fine grained and smooth in comparison to many others. But that doesn't make it bad film. Tri-X is grainier, and not as sharp as Tmax. But for me it's the ultimate film. I love it. It has enough grain to give it bite and to make it interesting, yet with a developer like Edwal 12 you can get grain that is very fine (to the point I have trouble focusing it with a grain focuser at 9x9" enlargement from a 6x6 Hasselblad neg). It is very versatile that way. Try it in Rodinal or HC-110 if you want grain. D76 looks really spectacular with this film also.

If you want something that looks a bit like the old Tri-X, try Foma 200 and 400.

But please stop the unnecessary language.

 

[jim appleyard]

Try souping in Rodinal. It's a clasic combo and should give you the gutsy grain I think you're looking for.

 

[alt photophile]

Can anyone explain why there is Tri-X 320 and Tri-X 400? I personally like the grainy look (though not the 3200 look). Do these films differ in their graininess??

 

[2F/2F]

Can anyone explain why there is Tri-X 320 and Tri-X 400? I personally like the grainy look (though not the 3200 look). Do these films differ in their graininess??

They are different emulsions. The data sheets have a lot of info.

 

[fschifano]

They differ a bit in grain, but this is a very minor point. 320TXP (Tri-X 320) is a different film and offered only in medium and large format sizes. 400TX (Tri-X 400) is offered only in 35 mm and medium format sizes. They differ primarily in the shape of the contrast curve. Read about it here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf.

 

[removed account4]

If you want something that looks a bit like the old Tri-X, try Foma 200 and 400.

i was going to say this, but thomas beat me to it.

- john

 

[jim appleyard]

Can anyone explain why there is Tri-X 320 and Tri-X 400? I personally like the grainy look (though not the 3200 look). Do these films differ in their graininess??

TXP was designed to be a studio film using controlled lighting. However, this is not etched in stone and photographers are a daring bunch and often break the rules with good success.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I thought Tri-X 320 had a retouching film base, and Tri-X 400 did not. (In addition to other differences)

 

[Ektagraphic]

If you are trying to get an antique, 50 year old shot look, try any of the ADOX CHS Art film. That's all I use for B&W. Truly a great film.

 

[dphill]

If you really want grain, sharpness and tonality, try Agfa APX 400. It is known as Rollie Retro 400 nowadays.
AND if you want, the grain can be tamed.
I love the stuff!
Dan

 

[gainer]

Tri-X 320 is designed for portraiture, IIRC. So far as I know, the 320 is not available in 35 mm. It has a different characteristic curve shape to make up for the difference between average outdoor lighting and studio lighting. If anything, the 320 should be less grainy.

 

[removed account4]

I thought Tri-X 320 had a retouching film base, and Tri-X 400 did not. (In addition to other differences)

i still have some tri x 400 ... ( 5x7 + 4x5 )
old stuff expired in the mid/late 90s ..
it has a "tooth" to retouch ...
tri x 400 earlier than that also had a tooth ..

many films will have a "retouchable" surface,
as long as hardener isn't used with the fixer ...
i loved printing retouched tri x because
the grain also helped mask the strokes of lead ...
we used to enlarge split 5x7 negatives up to 16x20 all the time
and you couldn't see the strokes that were used to 'smooth' the uneven skin tones
you basically couldn't beat dk50+tri x and leads for portraits. great stuff ...

i am speaking of sheet films,
YMMV with tri x roll films ...

 

[Jayd]

First of all I apologize for the language nasty should not have been included at all. And I am stating an opinion only partly based on Anchel's book and partly based on my experience with T max 400, classic Tri X from 30 years ago to just before the change in grain structure, and current Tri X. The difference Anchel states is in the silver crystals and grain structure with old Tri X having round crystals and high acutance, while T max has flat crystals and lower acutance; New Tri X has oval crystals lowering the acutance. Cheapening refers to the less silver used in production of Tri X and less yet in T Max. What I'm after is the "gutsy" robust, bold look of the classic tri X. HP5 is the closest that I have used.

 

[Jayd]

I apericate the Kodachrome post by Ektagraphic.
While others fade away Kodachrome stays rich and vibrant.
Jay

 

[2F/2F]

If you are trying to get an antique, 50 year old shot look, try any of the ADOX CHS Art film. That's all I use for B&W. Truly a great film.

...and/or Efke 25/50/100, which are the same films as Adox Art 25/50/100. However, if you are going to use it in 120 format, I would go ahead and get the Adox instead of the Efke, as the spools come with a reusable storage tube. Unfortunately, Efke 400 is not anything but a rebranded modern emulsion, so 100 is your fastest emulsion of this type. Last I checked with Freestyle, they were using Agfa APX 400 for Efke 400.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

As well as Foma 200 and 400, try the 100 too. Slower but a very classic look.
You may like Neopan 400 too. A touch more modern than HP5 etc it has stunning tonality in Xtol 1+something.

 

[clay]

If you miss the 1970's Tri-X look, buy a 400 foot roll of Eastman XX 5222 cine film and roll your own. It is about a 250 speed film, and has none of the fine grained improvements you seem to dislike in the newer Tri-X emulsions. Use Beutler's or Stoeckler's developer and you will have all the sharp, grainy and punchy look you want.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Tri-X 400 is a great film but so is T-max 400. Maybe different but both are great!

Jeff