The Tri-X look

Roger Cole · Mar 4, 2015

It could be my meters. I noticed with TMY first came out that it was a full stop slower under tungsten light than daylight, at least for me. Kodak's response curves do NOT bear this out, but it's the result I get, and across a range of several meters (at least two 35mm Pentax with built in metering and my Soligor spot meter for 4x5.) To be fair I don't recall making the comparison with my Luna Pro SBC or with my Mamiya 645 AE prism.

Still, the results I got originally with TMY were with the same meters that worked fine in that light with the Tri-X of those days. I can't explain it, I just know what I have to do to get good results with my equipment and methods.

jonasfj · Mar 4, 2015

didjiman said:
How about Tri-X at ISO 1600? Please find grain... XD

Just a test of the 60 Distagon I am renting. Tri-X ISO 1600 (why 1600? Because I was taking some very dark indoor scenes earlier) with Diafine. Pretty sweet...

didjiman, I agree. Sweet!

Roger Cole said:
It could be my meters. I noticed with TMY first came out that it was a full stop slower under tungsten light than daylight, at least for me. Kodak's response curves do NOT bear this out, but it's the result I get, and across a range of several meters (at least two 35mm Pentax with built in metering and my Soligor spot meter for 4x5.) To be fair I don't recall making the comparison with my Luna Pro SBC or with my Mamiya 645 AE prism.

Still, the results I got originally with TMY were with the same meters that worked fine in that light with the Tri-X of those days. I can't explain it, I just know what I have to do to get good results with my equipment and methods.

Roger, I checked out your Flickr feed. You have some stunning photographs in your feed.

Kawaiithulhu · Mar 4, 2015

BetterSense said:
Modern TRIX is pointless. Tmy is better in every way. If you want something different than TMY, use HP5. If you use Tri-X, you are just using a grainier slower Tmax.

But I like grainier

Roger Cole · Mar 4, 2015

jonasfj said:
didjiman, I agree. Sweet!

Roger, I checked out your Flickr feed. You have some stunning photographs in your feed.

Thank you sir. I haven't updated (or had time to print) in a long time, I'm afraid. Life has been happening, in most annoying and time-absorbing ways, but I expect that to change soon.

GarageBoy · Mar 6, 2015

My issue is that I feel the allure/myth/legend of Tri X stops people from trying TMAX 400 (which is a beautiful film)
Everyone loves to play off nostalgia- everyone wants to pretend they're a 1950s-60s street photographer with a Leica and Tri X

Arcturus · Mar 6, 2015

TMY-2 is probably the best all purpose film available today. It's in fact too good for my purposes. I like to shoot a lot of old folders and the sharpness and tonal separation of TMY seems to be at odds with the aberrations that give the old and sometimes damaged lenses their character. Shooting a triplet wide open isn't supposed to be sharp and contrasty. Still, line up a bunch of prints made from various 400 ISO films and I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which.

cliveh · Mar 6, 2015

What on earth is the Tri-X look?

Arklatexian · Mar 6, 2015

cliveh said:
What on earth is the Tri-X look?

Beats the heck out of me. Unless it is the grainy look that most of our local news photographers tried their best NOT to get in their work. In their everyday work here, in the fifties, when they went to other formats than 4x5, they went to medium format (mostly Hasselblads), not 35mm. Tri-x was mostly used for MF and had a tendency to curl badly. If you wanted a roll type Tri-x film in 4x5 you bought Kodak Royal-Pan. The preferred 4x5 was the tried and true Super-Panchro Press, Type B. It wasn't until the photo-editors wanted lots and lots of pictures that these people finally went to 35mm and most were not happy about it. And they did NOT wear torn old Levis to work in. That came in with TV showing what newspaper photographers "looked like" and the photographers were named "animal"......Regards!

Roger Cole · Mar 6, 2015

Arcturus said:
TMY-2 is probably the best all purpose film available today. It's in fact too good for my purposes. I like to shoot a lot of old folders and the sharpness and tonal separation of TMY seems to be at odds with the aberrations that give the old and sometimes damaged lenses their character. Shooting a triplet wide open isn't supposed to be sharp and contrasty. Still, line up a bunch of prints made from various 400 ISO films and I wouldn't be able to tell you which was which.

For most films and prints, I wouldn't either. Oh I'm sure I could tell a 16x20 from a 35mm TMY-2 negative from one on Foma 400. But confine the films to readily available Kodak and Ilford, and print size to 8x10 from 35mm, develop in a standard developer, to the same contrast, with equivalent exposure and I agree. Most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference or, even if they could see slight differences, to tell which was on which film.

John Bragg · Mar 7, 2015

GarageBoy said:
My issue is that I feel the allure/myth/legend of Tri X stops people from trying TMAX 400 (which is a beautiful film)
Everyone loves to play off nostalgia- everyone wants to pretend they're a 1950s-60s street photographer with a Leica and Tri X

It is down to personal choice and sometimes down to aspects of a film's character that may be subtle, but are there nonetheless. I prefer Tri-X to TMAX and also I prefer HP5+ to Delta 400. It is grainer, but not in a bad way, since the apparent sharpness is thusly enhanced. Tonally It is better, but your personal experience may vary from this. We have the choice and that is a good thing indeed !

GarageBoy · Mar 9, 2015

Right, but you've tried both before you came to that conclusion- then you have the "you must use Tri X pushed if you want to do street photography" people

DREW WILEY · Mar 9, 2015

Tri-X is something of a living fossil, like a coelocanth. TMax was supposed to have exterminated it a long time ago, but somehow nostalgia or the sheer momentum of its reputation has kept it going. I don't know how much longer. Of course, the entire Kodak lineage isn't exactly safe. If Tri-X finally does die off, like it almost has several time, some people will think the world is ending. But only if they're haven't tried numerous more modern films, including those from Ilford. It has its "look", but so do other films. If Tri-X is your bag, enjoy it while you can.

Hatchetman · Mar 9, 2015

Central Camera carries as much Tri-X as all the other films combined, so I'm not too worried. Schools use a ton of it I guess. Regardless, I love the stuff.

DREW WILEY · Mar 10, 2015

You never know when those mountains of film could have been cut from the last master roll. When Kodak officially announced the discontinuance of Tech Pan, they had already ceased manufacture ten years before! Of course, Tech Pan seems to have kept better in warehouse storage than most films, and I don't think Tri-X is any immediate danger because it's the only film certain people seem to shoot;
but ya just never know what Kodak is really thinking...

The Tri-X look

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency