Replacement for TRI-X?

[fhovie]

As I see fewer choices of places that sell 120 TRI-X, and the really good prices seem to be slowly evaporating, I notice that J&C400 stuff and wonder ... humph, do I spend the time it takes to make it a favorite? Is it consistant? Does it do any of the things TRI-X does? Or is it a giant waste of time and I should just figure like gasoline, I should get used to paying more. Maybe Forma?

I like the contrast and tonality I get for high contrast scenes with TRI-X in p'cat. I use a lot of it. I trust it. It is like something that will cover for you when you really miss the mark. I push it to ASA1600, I shoot it at 200. It always does just what I expect it to do - consistantly. So ---- are there any other suiters that can fit that bill (for less money?) Just wondering ...

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

I had a jazz concert shoot a few years ago in which my order of TriX was lost. After venturing to the local photo supply, the closest they had in stock was Ilford HP5+. While it is slightly different than TriX results, the musicians still really liked the look . . . the match was so close I could tell a difference, but my clients did not. Hopefully they sell this still in 120 roll film, and if they do give it a trial run. I was developing the 35mm rolls of it using Ilfotec DD-X.

http://www.bigtimeoperator.com click on Gallery then Black & White for mostly Ilford samples mixed in with some TriX. I was comparing to TriX developed in ID-11, so maybe the choices of developers is what made them closer in results.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

 

[Jerevan]

Neopan 400 would be another good choice. It's good quality and it is cheap (although a bit less than say, Adox/Efke but not so much that I feel it worthwhile to put up with the quirks of those films) and it does what it should. It works pushed up to 1600, and while I haven't tried it pulled to 200, I can't see why it shouldn't work.

 

[André E.C.]

HP5+ is as close as it can get!

Cheers

André

 

[eclarke]

And the HP5 doesn't curl as badly as the Fuji..EC

 

[Mark Layne]

As I see fewer choices of places that sell 120 TRI-X, and the really good prices seem to be slowly evaporating, I notice that J&C400 stuff and wonder ... humph, do I spend the time it takes to make it a favorite? Is it consistant? Does it do any of the things TRI-X does? Or is it a giant waste of time and I should just figure like gasoline, I should get used to paying more. Maybe Forma?

I like the contrast and tonality I get for high contrast scenes with TRI-X in p'cat. I use a lot of it. I trust it. It is like something that will cover for you when you really miss the mark. I push it to ASA1600, I shoot it at 200. It always does just what I expect it to do - consistantly. So ---- are there any other suiters that can fit that bill (for less money?) Just wondering ...

Are we referring to TX 400 or TXP?
Mark

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

HP5+ and Neopan 400 are certainly good films, but the tonality is nothing like Tri-X.

J&C Classic 400 looks more like the old Tri-X sheet film (TXT) with more controllable highlights, a little more grain, and the caveats of softer emulsion (an issue if you're tray processing) and greater sensitivity to storage issues (don't buy more than you can use in a year).

You can also use your development times for Tri-X as a starting point for Classic 400. You may find that they work as is, or you might extend them slightly for those bright Tri-X highlights.

 

[kb244]

You can proballly get that TriX look from HP5+ better if you use a sharpening developer such as ilfosol-S (not microphen as that reduces and smothens the grain, which is typically recomended for faster films above 100). Worth a shot.

 

[Claire Senft]

I have no idea of what shooting a lot of it means. I do not know what portion of your total expense is related to the cost of Tri-X or what may be saved by the other choices. If you have the funds available perhaps well planned purchases of larger quantities may be advisable. I beleive that regardless of which film or paper we use that the cost per unit in the future will rise more than the cost per unit of, say, memory cards. Hopefully, I am wrong in my guess.

If Tri-X and Pyrocat HD is what works well for you then to continue to use it may be the best choice.

As an aside, I have not used any Tri-x for a long time..perhaps 30 years. I did use it to photograph when my children they were small. I liked the film. Perhaps I was influenced by the power of advertising since my television was contstantly reminding that "Trix is for kids".

 

[Rolleiflexible]

As I see fewer choices of places that sell 120 TRI-X, and the really good prices seem to be slowly evaporating, I notice that J&C400 stuff and wonder ... humph, do I spend the time it takes to make it a favorite? Is it consistant? Does it do any of the things TRI-X does? Or is it a giant waste of time and I should just figure like gasoline, I should get used to paying more. Maybe Forma?

I like the contrast and tonality I get for high contrast scenes with TRI-X in p'cat. I use a lot of it. I trust it.

I have to ask the question:

Why?

There is no way that Foma or JandC films are easier to find than Tri-X. At worst, you'll have to mail-order your film, any way you cut it, if you can't find TX in stores. The offbrands are cheaper but only by fifty cents a roll (B+H prices). They are discernably inferior films in every respect. If you like what you're getting with TX, why on God's earth would you change films to save fifty cents?

With logic like this, the death of Kodak films becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sanders

 

[don sigl]

I used to use tri X and swithched to HP5 about 12 years ago. They are not the same. The ilford film generally has more contrast and is a little edgier than the Tri X. (something i was looking for at the time). It is also a touch faster (400) as compared to 320. The Ilford has virtually no curl in 120 format, (the only roll film I've used where this is true).
I've been away from Tri X for a long time, and I was a little amazed at the price of it these days. I can understand why you would like to find something else. Still, I had someone tell me once that film was the cheapest ingredient in photography. Its not so cheap anymore, but when I look at all my other gear and the cost of maintenance on it....a brick of 120 or a box of 8x10 still looks pretty reasonable.

 

[Lee Shively]

If you really--I mean really--like Tri-X, there's no need to replace it. Just buy it online as long as it's available. If you would like to try another brand of film, I have found, for my purposes, I like HP5+ better than Tri-X.

 

[GraemeMitchell]

Order 50 or 100 rolls at a time out of B&H or Adorama and tx is cheap imo.

Not that I think a price tag can be put on a film if you like it, like anything in the creative process the materials and equip become invaluable if they do what you want them to.

I've found nothing personally that looks like tx or txp or px. They are all unique films.

I also, and I'm usually not this kind, do try and buy from kodak (and polaroid) all around b/c I love some of their films, films that when gone will be dearly missed by me. Especially px, as I could see it dissappearing any day. This isn't always possible, and I know it's a simple/naive view, but still it's my small contribution...like recycling my straws.

 

[John Bragg]

If you are looking for a substitute for Tri-X, there is only one candidate......More Tri-X.

Regards, John.

 

[Paul Howell]

The only way to really find out is to try the alternatives such as HP5, TMAX, Delta, and Fuji in several of your usual develpers and see what works best for you.

 

[RAP]

I have been playing with HP5 in PMK with 35mm street work in NYC. Here are a couple of images on my web site with this combo. I am very pleased with the results.

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

 

[m_liddell]

If you are looking for a substitute for Tri-X, there is only one candidate......More Tri-X.

Regards, John.

Truth. There are other non t-grain iso 400 films but none like tri-x; I will shoot it until it is no longer avilable. No other film has the tri-x 'look' or gets the same speed increase in diafine.

Yet to try in in pyrocat, maybe I should try it.

 

[Bruce Watson]

I like the contrast and tonality I get for high contrast scenes with TRI-X in p'cat. I use a lot of it. I trust it. It is like something that will cover for you when you really miss the mark.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Tom Duffy]

Only TXP is TXP.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

In Acufine, I rate TXT (still have some), TXP, and Classic 400 all at 640.

 

[Rolleijoe]

The closest thing (IMHO) is Neopan 400. It's been described as "Tri-X with finer grain". Fomapan has more of the Agfa look going for them (something I personally like).

Classic 400 (from what I've read) is a grain-fest, especially in 35mm. With Fomapan available (from Freestyle for $1.39 as AristaEDU Ultra) it's cheap enough to experiment with, but quality is high enough to count on.

I shoot a lot of Efke 100, then Tri-X, Fomapan, Plus-X, Neopan 400, and soup most of them in Rodinal----now that it's back. B&H sells the gray market stuff pretty cheap, but personally I'm not using gray anymore since too many bad experiences with it.

Give the Foma a try, at $1.39 you can't go wrong, and who knows you may just like it.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I would say Neopan 400 looks closer than HP5 plus but neither are that similar. Neopan is a little soft to my eyes and needs a sharp developer. Its quite odd in that the grain appears soft edged and not as naturally sharp as TrX and HP5. I would pay the extra and use TriX personally! I have decided to do just this having ceom from HP5 and then quite liking Neopand and being bowled over by the new TriX.

 

[Woolliscroft]

No one ever answered your question: can you get HP5 in 120. The answer is yet, but sadly not, any longer, in 220, which is why I made the switch in the other direction, from HP5 to Tri-X.

David.

 

[roteague]

No one ever answered your question: can you get HP5 in 120. The answer is yet, but sadly not, any longer, in 220, which is why I made the switch in the other direction, from HP5 to Tri-X.

David.

Ilford's Product List (as of Nov 2005):

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/200612921234871.pdf