Sharpness of Tri-X 400 and T-Max 400

[Naples]

My question concerns the apparent - at least to me - difference in sharpness between Kodak's Tri-X 400 and T-Max 400 films.

I shoot - in manual mode - with a 35mm Nikon N80 with a Nikon AF 50mm f/1.4D lens. I don’t develop my own film, never have. Rather, I send it out to pro labs (either A & I in California or Dale Photo in Ft. Lauderdale) for developing and printing on 4x6 paper.

For years I followed all the online rage and shot with T-Max 400. It was good. But when I tried Tri-X at the suggestion of a friend, I was surprised that my photos looked sharper. That is, it appears - at least to me - that I get better 4x6 prints back from the pro labs when I send them Tri-X than when I send them T-Max.

Now, I know T-Max is T-grained, is technologically sharper, etc., and I’ve seen the online close-up crops of scanned photos showing T-Max to be sharper than Tri-X. But what I get back from the pro labs and hold in my hand - at least shooting 35mm and printing at 4x6 - doesn’t show that.

What I get back from the pro labs shows Tri-X to be sharper.

Could it be that Tri-X is actually sharper - or at least appears to be sharper - in the small world of 35mm and 4x6?

Could it be that Tri-X is easier to develop than T-Max and the pro labs do a better job with it, resulting in sharper images?

Could it be that Tri-X is more forgiving and, given my limited photographic talents, produces sharper images for me than does T-Max?

Am I nuts?

Thanks!

 

[Роберт]

It's all very subjective when sending out to a lab and not doing the development yourself.
Theoretically Tmax 400 must be sharper but of course it depends on the film-developer combination.

But if you try to found the ultimate sharp (iso 400) film: Gevaert aviation film, AKA Rollei retro 400S.

The iso 50-80 version is increadible sharp and fine grained: Retro 80S.

 

[brucemuir]

TMY is sharper, grain is finer but this can be influenced by developer choice to a degree.
Tri X is indeed more forgiving of development time.
Both those labs you mentioned seem to have a good rep. (who knows these days?)

Maybe they stomp on the TriX with some unsharp mask in the scan stage but it seems unlikely it would receive a different workflow for what they would apply to your Tmax (especially for 4x6 prints) but I'm guessing on that.

Maybe they apply more unsharp mask in software for TriX? ? ?

 

[MattKing]

Apparent sharpness is a combination of:

1) contrast (both micro and macro);
2) acutance; and
3) resolution.

Subjectively, contrast and acutance may have the greatest effect on perception of sharpness. Resolution may have relatively less effect. One of the most interesting paradoxes in photography (IMHO) is that if you increase the resolution of film (or a sensor for that matter) it can make the transitions between details appear smoother and therefore have the appearance of sharpness appear less.

The T-Max is capable of higher resolution than the Tri-X, but the grain of the Tri-X can enhance its acutance. The combination can really affect your subjective response to prints from the two films.

The method of printing (particularly contrast) may also have a large amount of effect on perceived sharpness, especially if the lab is scanning and printing digitally, after "sharpening" (actually artificially increasing apparent acutance).

In addition, the pro labs are probably using a developer that is "forgiving" - by that I mean flexible and usable with a large variety of film, handled and exposed in a wide variety of ways. A developer like that probably doesn't maximize acutance and contrast.

 

[tkamiya]

Here's my experience with 2 years of intensely playing with both films.

Tmax400 is sharper
Tmax400 has much smaller grain
Tmax400 is more contrasty
I like Tmax400
TriX400 is more forgiving in exposure
TriX400 is more forgiving in processing
TriX400 is milder, gentler, and overall have very appealing qualities
I like TriX400

I find TriX much easier to handle and process. It's very forgiving where as Tmax400 can be temperamental. I can end up with contrasty and dense negative much easier with Tmax400. Technically speaking and comparing grain under microscope (I have done this and I do own a microscope), TMax has much smaller grain. But, I also have an image shot with Tri-X (35mm) enlarged to 11x14 that is more than adequately sharp.

You can't really judge sharpness with 4x6 prints. Your eyes can be so easily mislead by abrupt density change (contrast) in local areas. My suggestion is blow it up to 8x10 to examine.

Comparison of film is difficult unless you shoot both film at the exact same location in exact same lighting, then process and print with exactly the same parameters. It comes down to taste and look, I think.

Not the same test but I've shot Tmax400, TriX400, and Delta3200 all at EI1600 and within the same 1 hour time frame in the same venue, processed similarly. I was rather surprised how little difference there were between them when printed to the same density. It was a bit surprising result to me.

 

[Bob Carnie]

If you are looking at the prints then this discussion is silly.
4x6 prints are scanned on either fuji frontier, agfa or other types of minilab equipment.
all these machines have untold methods of sharpening, Ice programs to remove dust and so on. different film settings will influence what the computer dictates for sharpness.

How do I know?? I have a fuji frontier scanning system for scanning roll film to make small prints.

Take a loupe to your film and you will see nice grain with Trix and less grain with Tmax.
Make large prints and then you will have something to go from.

 

[bblhed]

Maybe it is just something you are seeing that you like about the Tri-X photos that makes you like the way that they came out and you just believe that they are sharper. Could be mid tones, blacks, but they could just be sharper.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

If you have ever looked at a tri x neg at 80 x ( 8x10 projection + 10X focus grain magnifier ) you would see it is not sharp.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Some people like coffee, some like tea. Is one inferior to the other?

 

[Tim Gray]

What MattKing said.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Apparent sharpness is a combination of:

1) contrast (both micro and macro);
2) acutance; and
3) resolution.

Subjectively, contrast and acutance may have the greatest effect on perception of sharpness. Resolution may have relatively less effect. One of the most interesting paradoxes in photography (IMHO) is that if you increase the resolution of film (or a sensor for that matter) it can make the transitions between details appear smoother and therefore have the appearance of sharpness appear less.

The T-Max is capable of higher resolution than the Tri-X, but the grain of the Tri-X can enhance its acutance. The combination can really affect your subjective response to prints from the two films.

The method of printing (particularly contrast) may also have a large amount of effect on perceived sharpness, especially if the lab is scanning and printing digitally, after "sharpening" (actually artificially increasing apparent acutance).

In addition, the pro labs are probably using a developer that is "forgiving" - by that I mean flexible and usable with a large variety of film, handled and exposed in a wide variety of ways. A developer like that probably doesn't maximize acutance and contrast.

As said above, it probably comes down to accuance, but I find that I like the Tri-X 'sharpness' better than the TMax 'sharpness' just as I prefer the Tri-X traditional look to TMax tabular look. Since I cannot get Tri-X 400 in 4"x5", I use Ilford HP5+, rather that TMax 400. It is a matter of taste. But that does not stop me from using TMax 400 if Ilford HP5+ is not available.

Again that is a matter of taste. What is not a matter of taste is that TMax must be in the hypo longer than Tri-X or Ilford HP5+ to clear out the damn purple cast.

Steve

 

[Naples]

Thanks for all the informative responses. In particular I appreciate the discussion on how resolution, contrast, and acutance all affect sharpness. If I understand correctly, while T-Max is capable of higher resolution, the Tri-X grain gives more acutance (and contrast?) and that may be the source of the higher (or at least perceived higher) sharpness of Tri-X.

It's nice to know that, as Michael says above, "what you are seeing is not all that uncommon."

 

[tkamiya]

Hi, OP....

Before making ANY determination, take identical shots of the same scene with the same equipment (with each film), get your prints made to at least 8x10 optically or get it scanned at high enough resolution, or use a microscope on your negative if you got one.

I'm in central Florida. If you can't make optical prints, I'll be glad to make them for you at no charge, so contact me via PM if you wish. 8x10 glossy RC prints are all you need for this comparison purpose.

With scientific definition of resolution, acuity, micro contrast, etc aside, it's all about what you see and what you like. Trying both in identical condition is the only way to determine that.

 

[Tim Gray]

If I understand correctly, while T-Max is capable of higher resolution, the Tri-X grain gives more acutance (and contrast?) and that may be the source of the higher (or at least perceived higher) sharpness of Tri-X.

I think that's the general idea. Though I would like to point out that this perceived higher sharpness of Tri-X is only for a certain range of sizes. If you were printing a large print and able to see smaller details on the negative, I think you'd find that T-Max looks sharper.

 

[Mark Fisher]

I can say that for the same processing and printing, Tmax is sharper and finer grained. If your lab does a better job with Tri-X and you can't process it yourself, definitely stick with Tri-X. I tend to use Tri-x for 35mm and Tmax400 in medium format simply because I like grain in 35mm and the look it gives. As Bob says, though, machine made 4x6 prints really doesn't tell you much about the inherent qualities of the film or the negative.