Slower alternative to Tri-X 400

[dkonigs]

I'm gearing up to do some shooting on an old Crown Graphic 4x5 (using a 120 roll back). Just shot a test roll on Tri-X 400, and I really liked the look of the shots.

Here's the issue... I want to use the flashbulbs in the photos, yet they are super-powerful. I'd basically be maximizing the f-stop and shutter speed on the thing, and still have to get 15-20ft from my subject to get a good exposure on ISO 400 film.

That being said, I'm looking for options in the ISO 100-200 range that'll have a similar vintage look to what I can get off of Tri-X.

(since I'm having a local lab do my processing for the time being, and don't want to risk things getting screwed up, I'd rather avoid push/pull processing and shoot film at its labeled ISO)

 

[bdial]

My choice would be Kodak Plus-X since you're using 120.

 

[Leighgion]

While I wouldn't say it's similar to the look of Tri-X, Fomapan is a nice and economical option for a more old-time look. It's available in 100, 200 and 400 and is very reasonably priced as Freestyle's Arista.EDU Ultra rebrand.

 

[Dan Daniel]

What about neutral density filters? That way, you can stick with the emulsion you know and just 'slow it down' with the filters, yes?

 

[BetterSense]

ND filters, save the trouble of stocking another film.

Or use Foma 100, which is at best a 50 speed film, but looks very nice in large formats.

 

[2F/2F]

Tri-X 320 is fine with flashbulbs. It is one of the best films out there for such use, IMO. It is certainly my favorite for flashbulb use. It does not block up easily in the high tones. If it overexposes a little, you will be fine, if not better off than with "normal" exposure. You can under develop a little if you want to. Do tests. It is the only way to nail things for sure.

 

[dkonigs]

Thanks for all the replies.
ND filters aren't really an option, since this camera's lens doesn't have an easy way to attach them. (its designed for press-on, not screw-on filters, and I'm not even sure where to get the adapters the graflex.org forms vaguely mention)

So these are the options mentioned:
Kodak Tri-X 320
Kodak Plus-X 125
Fomapan 100 or 200

One thing I had a hard time figuring out, was why Tri-X was only made as 400 and 320. Somehow 320 seems like an odd ISO rating. But what I'm really missing here is a table of flashbulb guide numbers with enough details (or just the formulas I can plug into a calculator) that I can determine just how much of a difference it actually makes going from 400 to 320. FWIW, I'm using Sylvania Press 25 flashbulbs, and the only table I've found so far is this one:
http://www.flashbulbs.com/ClearBulbs.htm

 

[Larry.Manuel]

You might like Ilford FP4+. I can't say it's "like" Tri-X, although I've used both in 120. FP4+ has a traditional emulsion, is reasonably fine grained, and is tolerant of imprecise exposures. For box speed, it develops nicely in Rodinal at 1+50, or use DD-X for EI 200.

 

[Lee L]

But what I'm really missing here is a table of flashbulb guide numbers with enough details (or just the formulas I can plug into a calculator) that I can determine just how much of a difference it actually makes going from 400 to 320.

The difference between 400 and 320 is 1/3 stop. You'll need 1/3 stop more exposure with the 320, everything else being equal. 320 is a standard ISO rating, perhaps less common, but certainly not odd.

The reason that you can't find a formula is that the bulbs don't have a strict guide number like an electronic flash in a non-removable reflector. Look down the page you reference and you'll see that most of the data tables specify a reflector size and type of finish in which the bulb is used. You'll have to test yours and see what you get. Most flash bulb reflector units had tables of effective guide numbers or the equivalent distance/f-stop tables with listings for the various types of flash bulbs. You could try to find one of these for your particular reflector setup, but testing would likely be faster and more accurate.

Depending on the setting in which you're shooting and your preference for the look of the flash, you might be able to bounce the flash or use bare-bulb flash so that you can get closer with Tri-X, or perhaps rig a diffuser in front of the flash. Roscoe's range of 'tough' diffusion materials spaced far enough in front of the flash might work, as they are heat resistant.

Lee

 

[Ektagraphic]

I would go with Plus-X 125. Great film.

 

[BradS]

320TXP with flashbulbs!

Ilford's FP4+ looks to my eye very much like Tri-X 400 but I would agree with an earlier poster, 320TXp is just the thing for the application. It was made for shooting flash and it is oft-times better rated at 200 or even slower. Give it a try. If you want the look of Tri-X, shoot Tri-X!

 

[Denis K]

I know you said that you don't think filters are a good option but dropping to 200 ASA or even 100 isn't going to give you more than a one or two stop reduction and to get that second stop you will be using some rather fine grain films. You may consider getting a 3x3" sheet of Kodak Wratten ND filter and cut it to slip just inside your lens opening. You should be able to jury-rig that onto the lens fairly easily without any additional hardware.

Another option would be to add a light modifier to your flash to cut back its intensity. However, if you are after that vintage 'True Crime' look, you will need to make sure that the modifier doesn't soften the light but merely filters it. Otherwise, your perp will look more like he is getting his portrait made than getting swept up in a dragnet.

Denis K

 

[donbga]

I'm gearing up to do some shooting on an old Crown Graphic 4x5 (using a 120 roll back). Just shot a test roll on Tri-X 400, and I really liked the look of the shots.

Here's the issue... I want to use the flashbulbs in the photos, yet they are super-powerful. I'd basically be maximizing the f-stop and shutter speed on the thing, and still have to get 15-20ft from my subject to get a good exposure on ISO 400 film.

That being said, I'm looking for options in the ISO 100-200 range that'll have a similar vintage look to what I can get off of Tri-X.

(since I'm having a local lab do my processing for the time being, and don't want to risk things getting screwed up, I'd rather avoid push/pull processing and shoot film at its labeled ISO)

Kodak Plus-X or Ilford FP4 I like both but you will have to test shoot and see which you prefer.

I don't like Fomapan film at all.

 

[Anscojohn]

ND filters, save the trouble of stocking another film.

Or use Foma 100, which is at best a 50 speed film, but looks very nice in large formats.

I second the ND idea. If you don't have them, you can make them from sheet film; cut them and put them in your series hood holder.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

If you don't have a ND filter go with Plus-X or Ilford FP4. Maybe T-max 100.

Jeff

 

[mikebarger]

You might try HP5, The way I use it I tested and can only get 200 out of it.

Mike

 

[Tim Gray]

When I think of a slower Tri-X, I think of Plus-X. Of course, Ilfords FP4+ might be a good substitute as well.

You could also put the ND gel on the flash.

 

[Nikanon]

Adox CHS 100, fantastic poly-grain film, none of that tabular nonsense, and it has less sensitized dye than tri-x, find it on freestyle in 120 size

 

[Larry.Manuel]

Many places will machine an adapter ring to slip a filter onto that wonderful old lens. S.K. Grimes? A med. yellow filter would work great, too. Usually good for 1.5 to 2 stops.

 

[removed account4]

use a roll, rate it slow, shoot it in the same conditions,
and process it to your liking ..
see how it looks, if you need to use a different ( slower )
film you will know after you see how tri x will work under
the conditions you want to shoot it in ...

other films might work OK, but tri x might work better
you never know until you try ...

have fun ?
john

 

[wogster]

I'm gearing up to do some shooting on an old Crown Graphic 4x5 (using a 120 roll back). Just shot a test roll on Tri-X 400, and I really liked the look of the shots.

Here's the issue... I want to use the flashbulbs in the photos, yet they are super-powerful. I'd basically be maximizing the f-stop and shutter speed on the thing, and still have to get 15-20ft from my subject to get a good exposure on ISO 400 film.

That being said, I'm looking for options in the ISO 100-200 range that'll have a similar vintage look to what I can get off of Tri-X.

(since I'm having a local lab do my processing for the time being, and don't want to risk things getting screwed up, I'd rather avoid push/pull processing and shoot film at its labeled ISO)

I usually find that if I like a 400ISO film that I will usually like it's 100 or 125 ISO equivalent. So if you like Tri-X the first thing to logically try is Plus-X. You can also shoot Tri-X at 200 and try that, even without changing the processing, some people prefer there film with a little extra exposure anyway. Two things you can also try, an ND filter over the lens, or depending on how your flash unit is built, put a filter over the flash bulb holder, check with a place that sells stage and studio lights, they probably have nice big ones, you may need to make some kind of frame to hold the filter though. One thing to keep in mind, you want to be at least 10-15' away from your subject if it is a person or animal, with unshielded flashbulbs, anyway, flashbulbs have been known to explode, launching shrapnel out the front of the flash unit, and that tends to really annoy live subjects if they are injured by flying fragments.

If your using a lab, then simply mark on the film cartridge that the film was used at 200 ISO, any lab even half way worth using will know what to do.....