Plus-X vs Tri-X

[skyrick]

So far my BW shooting has been limited to 120; Fuji Acros and Ilford SFX 200. I'm wanting to start playing w/BW in 35mm.

Which of the 2 Kodaks in the thread title do you prefer/recommend and why? I won't be using the 35 for portraits, mostly outdoor "found" objects or situations.

Any other 35mm BWs I may want to try?

Rick

 

[Jeff L]

Acros in 35mm would be good too. I shoot some Tri-X but mostly Ilford HP5, FP4 and Delta 100.
Generally all of the film out there is good and interesting to try IMO. For found objects at different times of the day I'd opt for Ilford HP5 or Tri-X.

 

[Tim Gray]

Tri-X is a better all around film in my mind because it has more speed. It's also cheaper and probably a bit more flexible in terms of exposure. I like them both though. Plus-X is great for a sunny day.

It seems to me that Plus-X is a bit less blue sensitive; I don't blow out skies as much when I shoot non-filtered on Plus-X as I do with Tri-X. Maybe that's all in my mind though.

 

[kodachrome64]

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry 8300: BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.266 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

They have a similar look to me. I use them both a lot, solely depending on how much light I have. I use PX from 64-125 and TX from 200-3200 if in a pinch.

 

[PhotoJim]

I like them both but like Plus-X better of the two, light allowing.

I tend to shoot FP4 Plus and Pan-F Plus the most though.

 

[tony lockerbie]

Hard to compare them as they are quite different speeds, although both are "traditional" films with really good exposure/processing latitude. If speed is no object, then go for the Plus-X, it will give you finer grain and a bit more sharpness than the Tri-X.
I have been using the new TMax400, find it to be an excellent film, much sharper than Plus-x or Tri-X, if that's what you are looking for. Of course you can do as I do, and try them all, great fun!

 

[sandermarijn]

You may want to give Fuji's Neopan 400 a try. I feel this is one of the most underrated films around. It's very similar to Tri-x in all respects, but with slightly finer grain (it has a beautiful grain *pattern*) and higher sharpness. One could maybe say that Neopan 400 is the best of the two worlds of T-grain and old style emulsions: it has the fine grain and sharpness of the former, and the tonality of the latter.

I don't know about the US, but in Europe Neopan 400 is significantly cheaper that both Tri-x and HP5+.

I like Neopan 400 best at EI 250 in Rodinal 1+50 8 min, both in 35mm and in 120. Try it, you may be pleasently suprised. Or first read Mark Anthony Smith's evaluation of Neopan 400. He hits the nail on the head if you ask me.

 

[nickrapak]

I am inclined to say that Tri-X is what one would expect from a higher-speed Plus-X, and vice versa. Tri-X has coarser grain, but it is a nice grain. Plus-X has a similar grain pattern, but finer. I like both of these films, and use them as higher and lower speed versions of each other.

 

[nworth]

Tri-X is faster, Plus-X has finer grain. They have a somewhat different look to them, and they behave a bit differently, but these are fine points, I presently prefer Tri-X, although I used to prefer Plus-X (there's no accounting for taste). I just like the look and handling better, for no good reason. Tri-X has quite fine grain - good enough for just about all uses. Plus-X grain is noticeably finer. Sharpness is nearly equal, although measurements say Plus-X is a bit better. Try a couple of rolls of each and see which works best for you.

 

[clayne]

Depends on the available light really. If it's quite ample, go with PX, if it's flat and heading towards afternoon, go with TX. If you can't make a decision which film to bring with you on a given day, use TX.

 

[Harry Lime]

If I could only shoot one film it would be Tri-X. IMO it truly is the best b/w film made and has been for a very long time.
Tri-X has an almost perfect balance of tonality, grain and speed. It does pretty much anything and depending on how you process it can have several different looks.

Plus-X is similar to Tri-X, but of course finer grained. It has a similar feel, probably because both emulsions have been around for a few decades (with a few revisions). Grain is very good and the tonality is excellent. Plus-X is very nice for portrait work.

 

[jim appleyard]

Plus-X is often called Tri-X's little brother. I suppose that's true enough. Both are fine films and most of the difference is in the speed of the two films, although grain does play a part.

Freestyle in L.A. sells their Arista Premium brand which is Plus-X and Tri-X in a different wrapper. The cost is very low.

Get yourself an extra 35 body and shoot both, one film in each. You'll like both of these films.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

If the camera going to be handheld then I will go got Tri-X. If you going to use a tripod than use Plus-X. At least that's what I'll do!

Jeff

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Buy both and use what is appropriate to the ambient lighting conditions.

Chris

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

In 120, I find that Plus-X is a good film to use with HC-110, because it tends to have rather brilliant highlights. Tri-X is much more about good midtones, which is what you want for most situations, especially with people. If you look at each film's characteristic curve, you will see that they differ a bit.

For landscape, Plus-X can be very interesting. But I can never manage to get it to my taste in 35mm--I haven't worked out a proper EI/dev time to avoid blown highlights (lazy, I know). So I stick to Tri-X in 35mm, because it suits my 35mm style more, and I use Plus-X in 120 because it suits my MF style more...