The "less silver in new Tri-X" myth

[Amund]

Someone in another forum claims:
"Unfortunately kodak did the nasty and removed much of the silver from tri-x. Now it has no guts. It's a pathetic flat film with no character. The only worse film in my opinion is the tmax films."

I find this to be really strange,I haven`t had anything but great results with Tri-x, both TX and TXP from 35mm to 8x10.

Isn`t this "less silver" thing just an old myth?

 

[clay]

Less silver or not, Tri-X is a better film today than it has ever been. You can still build impressive density with the right developer, and the grain is smaller and finer than Plus-X was twenty years ago. But the statement does appeal to the conspiracy minded people who can't be bothered with real world data.

Someone in another forum claims:
"Unfortunately kodak did the nasty and removed much of the silver from tri-x. Now it has no guts. It's a pathetic flat film with no character. The only worse film in my opinion is the tmax films."

I find this to be really strange,I haven`t had anything but great results with Tri-x, both TX and TXP from 35mm to 8x10.

Isn`t this "less silver" thing just an old myth?

 

[Paul Sorensen]

I have not done any scientific testing, but the results I am getting are at least as good as the old version. I agree that there is a conspiracy thing that people get caught up in regarding Kodak. I have never heard that HP5 Plus was intentionally cheapened by Ilford. I really do think that this is a Kodak thing. That said, I guess Kodak has not shown much support for the film photography community, so it is kind of understandable that people don't trust them.

 

[Photo Engineer]

This went on even in the best days of analog photography. People love to bash Kodak for some reason.

If silver is reduced, the number of silver centers decreases and grain goes up. It is that simple. Even with finer grained emulsions, the grains get further apart as you reduce silver until you go up in grain and down in sharpness.

Yes, it is a rumor or a myth. There are calculations that can be made to determine how much silver and what size is needed for each grain to get a reasonable image.

I guess some people like to bash Kodak and others need an excuse for their poor pictures. I guess the rest are good photographers.

PE

 

[boyooso]

If you think for a few minutes, there are a plethora of reasons for being annoyed with Kodak.

However, their TXP is quite nice! I love it!

-Corey

 

[Photo Engineer]

If you think for a few minutes, there are a plethora of reasons for being annoyed with Kodak.

However, their TXP is quite nice! I love it!

-Corey

I certainly agree with you, but OTOH, there are reasons to be upset with Ilford, Agfa and a few other photo mfgrs. There is no where near the level of 'bashing' of these other companies, and sometimes they deserve it. In fact, if there had been some, maybe Agfa might still be around?

PE

 

[Curt]

Clay, what is the "right" developer?

 

[Harry Lime]

If anything I think the latest incarnation of Tri-X is the best I have ever used.

I haven't done any scientific tests, but I swear the grain is finer, yet retains that Tri-X look. Personally I think Tri-X still is the "King of Black and White" films and the stock by which all others are measured.


Harry Lime

 

[battra92]

The odd thing is, I never used the old Tri-X so I don't know what, if anything, I missed. I was brought into black and white by means of free bulk loaded rolls of TMax so to me TMax looked "right" to me. I guess a lot of it is just taste. I've liked most black and white films I've used so, perhaps I'm just not picky enough.

Does anyone else find the new HC-110 dev time of 3.75 minutes a little short for Tri-X? I've gotten fairly good results with that, but I'm thinking of switching to a new developer as HC-110 doesn't work well on the slower films I like to use.

 

[gainer]

I think even Kodak recognized that time is too short for 400TX. Dave and Sylvia in their article introducing the new emulsions also thought so and recommended using the old times IIRC.

 

[mmcclellan]

The odd thing is, I never used the old Tri-X so I don't know what, if anything, I missed. I was brought into black and white by means of free bulk loaded rolls of TMax so to me TMax looked "right" to me. I guess a lot of it is just taste. I've liked most black and white films I've used so, perhaps I'm just not picky enough.

Does anyone else find the new HC-110 dev time of 3.75 minutes a little short for Tri-X? I've gotten fairly good results with that, but I'm thinking of switching to a new developer as HC-110 doesn't work well on the slower films I like to use.

Yes, that is a short developing time, but it's what my tests showed (give or take a little). So, I went to a 1:61 dilution, retested, and got a time I could live with. The higher dilution also saves developer, but the results are just as nice.

 

[clay]

Heck, I have gotten a CI of 1.1 and maximum densities of 3.3 with just plain old D76 1:1 souped for 22 minutes. Pyrocat HD, Rollo pyro, PMK also work wonders in building densities as well.

If it is contrast control you want, (For instance with the slightly different 35mm roll film version) try Calbe A49 for 8 min, Paterson FX-39 1:14 for 11-12 minutes, or aged 777 for 10-11 minutes (76 deg).

My personal opinion is that it is a great film, and only eclipsed in fast sheet film by another maligned Kodak product, Tmax 400.

Clay, what is the "right" developer?

 

[NikoSperi]

I think even Kodak recognized that time is too short for 400TX. Dave and Sylvia in their article introducing the new emulsions also thought so and recommended using the old times IIRC.

Really? I never heard them admit it was wrong. But I just checked my latest packaging and low and behold... they don't even mention HC110 anymore in the time table inside! I guess that's as close to admitting as they'll ever get.

Then again, maybe they figured discontinuing HC110 would be better than admitting they published the wrong time! :rolleyes:

 

[Gerald Koch]

T-grain/Delta films are strange beasts. Unlike conventional films they are very sensitive to the choice of developer. This probably explains why so many older photographers dislike them.

 

[erikg]

To be fair Kodak says in quite a number of places that developing times shorter than five minutes may cause uneven development. Some people do make it work, but it is tricky. HC-110 is very consistant at many dilutions, so it is easy enough to find one that gives you a more comfortable developing time. Arnold Gassan or somebody even went so far as to work out a system where the time never changes, just the dilution, no matter what the film or developing plan, using HC-110. Kind of a cool idea.

 

[L Gebhardt]

To be fair Kodak says in quite a number of places that developing times shorter than five minutes may cause uneven development. Some people do make it work, but it is tricky. HC-110 is very consistant at many dilutions, so it is easy enough to find one that gives you a more comfortable developing time. Arnold Gassan or somebody even went so far as to work out a system where the time never changes, just the dilution, no matter what the film or developing plan, using HC-110. Kind of a cool idea.

Do you have a link to this? It would be great for the Jobo where I have to program new times for each film/developer combo.

 

[erikg]

This info is going back aways now, to the 70's I think, so I don't think it is on line. But I believe it is in one of Gassan's textbooks, which I have at home. I think I should be able to transcribe what is needed. The main thing I think would be the degree of change in the dilution you would need to shift things one way or the other. I'll check it out, hopefully my memory isn't completely shot! It would be useful for the Jobo for sure.

 

[boyooso]

I remember talking with someone at Kodak, and they told me that the short times like 2 3/4 and 3 1/2 development times were ok in a jobo because of the heavy agitation.

What are the thoughts on using TMAX RS developer?

-Corey

 

[battra92]

I remember talking with someone at Kodak, and they told me that the short times like 2 3/4 and 3 1/2 development times were ok in a jobo because of the heavy agitation.

Hmm, I just do agitation for five seconds every 30 seconds (which was what I was taught)

Of course, since I am trying D-76 pretty soon anyway, I guess it doesn't matter really.

 

[noseoil]

The comment about Tri-x not working well indicates more about the poster than the film. I would wager that this person has never done any film testing, and subsequently, can't adapt to changes because of it. Life goes on. tim

 

[raucousimages]

I have found two differences in the new Tri-X. Finer grain and the emulsion is thinner. The fine grain is no problem but I use Tri-X for chemical reticulation and the thin emulsion looks different than the old film. I like the look but I can't match the texture I used to get. Not Bad just different.

 

[erikg]

In order not to highjack this thread any further, the info requested on HC-110 can be found in this new thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Back to the topic, it is amusing that everytime a film or paper changes one hears the refrain "they took all the silver out, it was great, now its shxxx. " Testing never bears this out. You often hear that the classic papers had more silver and so got a better black, but I have taken densitometer readings of some good looking vintage prints and found that they have d-max numbers the same and in some cases less than that of contemporary papers. I'm not saying that the papers haven't changed, and sometimes for the worse, but I think maybe they are missing something else, (like cadmium) not silver. Vintage prints are good when they are the product of a complete system, good exposure, good negs, handled by someone familar with their materials etc. Just like now, and that takes time.

 

[Photo Engineer]

One thing that is important to remember.

All paper based materials are limited to a given dmax value of no higher than about 2.2 unless special additives are included in the coating (which is generally not done today as it gives no advantage to B&W AFAIK).

Therefore, once you get to a value of about 1.8, increasing silver mainly increases contrast, not dmax. Dmax goes up slowly beyond about 1.8 and levels off at about 2.2.

Silver rich paper is a fiction made up by the need to achieve contrast or the need to achieve dmax in the face of poor sensitization on the part of the manufacturer. I know. I'm seeing these problems myself making hand coatings and I saw them when I was doing product design at EK.

Things to note. Dmax is lower with matte papers than with glossy papers, even at the same silver. Development can change the tone of the image at equal silver quantity or it can change density up to the dmax limit.

And, btw, the dmax limit is a physical limitation imposed by sound laws of science which relate to internal reflections of light within the paper coating.

PE

 

[boyooso]

One thing that is important to remember.

All paper based materials are limited to a given dmax value of no higher than about 2.2 unless special additives are included in the coating (which is generally not done today as it gives no advantage to B&W AFAIK).

Therefore, once you get to a value of about 1.8, increasing silver mainly increases contrast, not dmax. Dmax goes up slowly beyond about 1.8 and levels off at about 2.2. relate to internal reflections of light within the paper coating.

PE

That is interesting... the dmax of my ilfochormes is 205-220.(rgb)...

Very intersting, and you say it is somewhat dependent on coating, that is very interesting to me... it makes sense if you think about it, I think.

Corey

 

[Ronald Moravec]

I get better results with new Tri-x reguardless of how it is made. And I really disliked the old film. It does develope too fast. d76 full strength at 5 1/2 min. An ei 200 pull starts getting tough at 4 1/2, but makes great negs. Grain free at 7x10 and full of detail.

Too bad it is the last Yellow stuff I`ll buy. I refuse to finance the digital revolution.