The Tri-X look

[jonasfj]

Hi,

Everybody seem to have a strong opinion on the Tri-X look, but to my surprise, I have difficulties finding an objective characterization of the behaviour of this classic emulsion.

Some say contrasty, others say flat etc. Some say they like the midtones, some not. Some prefer HP5+, some not.

Most seem to agree on high latitude and high degree of detail in shadows compared to other films and that it gives good results when pushing the exposure.

Anyone who knows about a good text on Tri-X?

Cheers,

Jonas

 

[snapguy]

elusive

Methinks you are aiming at a very elusive target. When I first started taking 35mm photos, Tri-X was too grainy to use for most subjects. The international photo news service I worked for would use Plus-X for most subjects on 35mm and Tri-X only when extra film speed was needed, for instance for indoor basketball. Tri-X was okay to use in 120 or 4x5 size, at the time. Over the years Tri-
X became better. It went from very grainy to kinda grainy to not very grainy at all, and then it was used for almost everything. So which Tri-X do you want to emulate?

 

[John Bragg]

Hi Jonas. Tri-X is very flexible in terms of what you choose to develop it in. Thereby hangs the problem. Is there actually one definitive look with this legendary film ? Perhaps its charm is that it can be whatever you want it to be, if you know how. Some like it in Rodinal, I do not. I prefer it at ei200 developed in HC-110. That is MY personal Tri-X look. Ironically for me, HP5+ is closer to the "old Tri-X" look before they chose to "Improve" it some years ago.

 

[removedacct1]

Jonas - the problem is our perceptions can be coloured by everything we see and read (much of which could be wrong).

Historically, Tri-X was a go-to film for press photographers etc. because it was a fast film. It was, of course, grainy when enlarged from small format negatives, and often given extended development in an attempt to get maximum emulsion speed. The net result was a characteristic "gritty" look people then came to associate with Tri-X.

A few things are worth noting:

1) Current Tri-X is not the same as earlier iterations. It is still going to be grainier than slower films, but that's about all

2) Objectively, there is nothing particularly special about the tonality of Tri-X. It has a characteristic curve fairly typical of most current medium-high speed films, with a relatively short toe and long scale

3) There is nothing particularly "forgiving" about Tri-X versus other films. Not sure how that whole thing got started. Perhaps its history as a favourite of press photographers, or the false things people say about tabular grain films. I don't know.

4) Tri-X 400 (the film I'm referring to above) and Tri-X 320 "TXP" are different films with different characteristic curves

All I can suggest is that you try it for yourself and see if you like it.

Yup, all of the above. Tri-X has been mythologized to such an extent that it is difficult to gauge it objectively. It isn't especially unique among the other modern emulsions and using it isn't likely to impart any special traits to your work. It's fine, but it doesn't have "magical" properties.

 

[gone]

Why not shoot a few rolls and see what you think? There is no other way, really.

 

[ic-racer]

Hi,

Everybody seem to have a strong opinion on the Tri-X look, but to my surprise, I have difficulties finding an objective characterization of the behaviour of this classic emulsion.

Some say contrasty, others say flat etc. Some say they like the midtones, some not. Some prefer HP5+, some not.

Most seem to agree on high latitude and high degree of detail in shadows compared to other films and that it gives good results when pushing the exposure.

Anyone who knows about a good text on Tri-X?

Cheers,

Jonas

I have no idea what the Tri-X Look is, but I suspect any "Look" to a film is probably a result of how it was processed and printed. Why not expose and print some for yourself and see what you think. The Kodak PDF is probably as good as it gets in terms of info available on the web. ( http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.pdf )
BTW it has less latitude and less shadow detail than t-max 400.
I perfer T-max, but when it is not available I use Tri-X interchangeably. With the two emulsions available today, I can't really tell any difference in prints when the films are processed identically.

 

[Ghostman]

Simple, by using Tri-X.

I believe in photographer/printer's look and not the look of a film. Film, like a carrot (how does one get that carrot taste?), is just an ingredient; For this print, you are going to need camera, some film, some light, some chemistry. In a dark room, add an enlarger, some paper, some light, some chemistry and VOILÀ!!!

Of course films have different characteristics, if I were to compare Acros with Delta or FP4, there are clear differences but the variables are endless, exposure, development time, chemicals etc.

You can give 10 chefs the same recipe and you will get 10 different dishes. You can give me the same camera and film as Michael Kenna but you'll get very different pictures.

I use a particular brand of products, not for the look but for:

1. availability
2. quality
3. can i load 2 rolls on 1 reel (minimal curl - I'm a lazy developer)
3. consistency in development and results

It's all about the print. Now what does a carrot taste like?

 

[Paul Howell]

Methinks you are aiming at a very elusive target. When I first started taking 35mm photos, Tri-X was too grainy to use for most subjects. The international photo news service I worked for would use Plus-X for most subjects on 35mm and Tri-X only when extra film speed was needed, for instance for indoor basketball. Tri-X was okay to use in 120 or 4x5 size, at the time. Over the years Tri-
X became better. It went from very grainy to kinda grainy to not very grainy at all, and then it was used for almost everything. So which Tri-X do you want to emulate?

Excellent point, Tri X has changed over the years, I also worked on and off for the wires in the 70s and 80s, in the early 70 available light was still a bid deal, Tri X HP 5 and GAF 500 were in common use. Of the 3 I thought that Tri X had the best grain, not in size but in appearance, good shadow detail. The labs developed negatives for higher contrast for printing in newspapers, but I don't think Tri x was more contrasted than any other high speed film, and was less contrasted than most slower films of the time. The closest to 70's tri x I have found is Foma 400. I don't know of any modern film that will match Tri X of the 60s. For gain and contrast you could try new Tri x and develop in Acufine.

 

[adelorenzo]

Some good thoughts about it in this article, if you haven't seen it:

http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/features/bryan-appleyard/tri-x-factor?page=full

 

[DREW WILEY]

You either like it or you don't. I don't. Too much of a toe to the curve, and it's rather gritty. But I've seen many wonderful prints made from it,
so it obviously still has a following or momentum. I just think newer films are easier when it comes to getting from Point A to Point B.

 

[gone]

One thing to keep in mind when you're shooting it to see what you think. The ISO that you shoot it at, and the developer you choose, will totally determine what the negs look like.

 

[jonasfj]

Guys, I have shot and developed many Tri-X films and I am pleased with the result (except for the stupid curling film base).

Some may have noticed from my question that I am trying to find OBJECTIVE data that support or does not support the "Tri-X look".

For example, someone was nice enough to give a link above in this thread to an essay on Tri-X. There, a few photographers talk about contrasty negatives and a "dirty" look that suited the 70's and 80's era and was good for "rock'n'roll" photographs.

Today I tried to compared the characteristic curves of Tri-X with T-MAX 400 taken from the Kodak technical data sheets.

It is a little like comparing apples with pears, but if I choose the T-MAX developer and the curves closest to the recommended development times at respective temperature (Tri-X: 6min/20C and T-MAX: 5min/24C), I can observe the following:

- The curves are close to identical, but there are slight differences

- The toes of the two films are identical

- Tri-X show a little bit more of an S-shaped curve compared to T-MAX 400

- Tri-X should show slightly more detail in the shadows than T-MAX 400

- T-MAX 400 should resolve more tones in the mid-range and more detail in high-lights

What is also quite interesting is the difference between D-76 (8min/20C) and T-MAX developer (5min/24C) for T-MAX 400. Here, the differences are much larger than between to two films. The latter developer show a curve that is steeper in all regions, i.e. shadows, mid-tones and highlights.

Can anyone support these data with own experience?

Groet,

Jonas

 

[Roger Cole]

You either like it or you don't. I don't. Too much of a toe to the curve, and it's rather gritty. But I've seen many wonderful prints made from it,
so it obviously still has a following or momentum. I just think newer films are easier when it comes to getting from Point A to Point B.

Too much toe? This would apply to TXP and I know Drew shoots a lot of sheet film, but TXT? No sure - I haven't seen a curve on the newest incarnation but it sure doesn't seem to behave like a long toe film, not for me anyway.

 

[Xmas]

Guys, I have shot and developed many Tri-X films and I am pleased with the result (except for the stupid curling film base).

Some may have noticed from my question that I am trying to find OBJECTIVE data that support or does not support the "Tri-X look".

For example, someone was nice enough to give a link above in this thread to an essay on Tri-X. There, a few photographers talk about contrasty negatives and a "dirty" look that suited the 70's and 80's era and was good for "rock'n'roll" photographs.

Today I tried to compared the characteristic curves of Tri-X with T-MAX 400 taken from the Kodak technical data sheets.

It is a little like comparing apples with pears, but if I choose the T-MAX developer and the curves closest to the recommended development times at respective temperature (Tri-X: 6min/20C and T-MAX: 5min/24C), I can observe the following:

- The curves are close to identical, but there are slight differences

- The toes of the two films are identical

- Tri-X show a little bit more of an S-shaped curve compared to T-MAX 400

- Tri-X should show slightly more detail in the shadows than T-MAX 400

- T-MAX 400 should resolve more tones in the mid-range and more detail in high-lights

What is also quite interesting is the difference between D-76 (8min/20C) and T-MAX developer (5min/24C) for T-MAX 400. Here, the differences are much larger than between to two films. The latter developer show a curve that is steeper in all regions, i.e. shadows, mid-tones and highlights.

Can anyone support these data with own experience?

Groet,

Jonas

If you have a step wedge you could compare Tx and HP5+.
There used to be some difference in toe, where HP5+ was softer than Trix.

Tx and Tmax are way different films for grain in mid tones, ditto Delta 400 and HP5+.

Noel

 

[Roger Cole]

Michael is spot on. Closest thing to it would probably be to get some Foma 400 and push the crap out of it. Delta 3200 too but by the time you get it that gritty you are going to be shooting it at 6400 or so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[removedacct1]

Regardless of the fact current Tri-X is a different film than 1950s Tri-X, people see what they want to see, and this is usually largely coloured by what we've seen and read. It seldom has much to do with anything objective. It would be fairly easy to make negatives using a variety of fast films (and even some medium speed films), print them, and fool everybody. The same goes for a great many things in photographic lore.

Precisely! Thank you Michael.

 

[MattKing]

The so called "Tri-X" look that the OP is wondering about is fairly distinctive. It is the result of a combination of choices:
1) light and exposure choices (primarily);
2) developer choices (a bit);
3) development time and technique choices (secondary); and
4) film choice (tertiary).

Modern Tri-X is quite capable of giving results that are relatively similar to the OP's classic Tri-X look, provided the right exposure and development choices are made.

Historically, Tri-X responded well to the conditions that lead one to the Tri-X look, as well as the exposure and development choices that supported it, so the film became identified with the look.

Today, there are more films and developers available to enable one to achieve that look.

But given my preference for Kodak, I still would recommend Tri-X .

You should note, however, that I prefer the TMY-2 look.

 

[jonasfj]

It has been an interesting discussion and at I have learned a few things.

To summarize:

- The latest 2007 iteration of Tri-X does not seem to have anything that objectively fits with the mythological "Tri-X look"

- The characteristic curve is very similar to T-MAX 400 (and probably to HP5+ and Delta 400 too). It is probably not possible to see the difference with the naked eye

- The Tri-X (and HP5+) show more and different grain compared to the tabular grain films T-MAX 400 (and Delta 400). This is visible

- According to Kodak, the T-MAX 400 show a higher level of acutance (perceived sharpness) and better resolution than Tri-X. However, I have not been able to verify this

Perhaps earlier iterations of Tri-X had a different more specific look. Maybe it was just because photographers developed according to the fashion of the time or it could be because of reproductions in newspapers and magazines loked differently with printing technology of that era?

Thanks guys!

Cheers,

Jonas

 

[BetterSense]

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.

 

[jonasfj]

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.

BetterSense, it would be interesting if you could show what the difference is between Tri-X and HP5+.

Thanks,

Jonas

 

[BetterSense]

HP5+ has a flatter 35mm base, a different colored box, has worse reciprocity characteristics, is available in swell formats like 4x5, 8x10, and others, is ever so slightly grainier and is slightly cheaper in most parts of the world.

My point was not that HP5+ is superior to Tri-x, but that Tri-X fills no niche and has no special characteristics that are not better filled by other films. Tri-X really is a fine film all the same. But TMY2 is better, and if you want a film that is worse than TMY2 for the sake of being different then HP5 is great.

 

[Roger Cole]

I have tried TMY-2 and in fact I've shot a fair amount in 4x5. It's a great film and was my 4x5 standard until Kodak priced itself out of contention in sheet film. But in rolls I just find Tri-X easier to produce consistently good results with.

 

[Richard Man]

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.

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...

 

[Roger Cole]

I've said it before - Tri-X in Diafine is an amazing combination. I still preferred slightly older Tri-X. I found 1600 good all the time then. With the current version of Tri-X I find that too thin under tungsten light, but fine in daylight - heavy overcast or whatever. I still use 1000 or so.

TMY (or -2) work ok but nothing like the effective speed that Tri-X gives in Diafine.

 

[Richard Man]

To be honest, I am pretty stunned by the result myself To be fair, this is 6x6, but still...

Oh, that pic was under LED (Tungsten replacement) lights. Just regular house lights...