TMAX 400 and TRI-X 400

Just like with the Ilford Films, I decided to subjectively compare Kodak TMAX 400 and TRI-X 400 at box speed 400 ISO both. The difference this time is that TRI-X was processed on D76 1:1 and TMAX was processed in TMAX Dev at Kodak recommended specs.

Of course controlling all the other possible variables as better as possible, I shot the same scene or subject with little time apart and developed both rolls (35mm) within the standard parameters. When Printing (see attachment), I also printed on to the same type of paper and developed exactly alike (Dektol 2:1) to avoid introducing more variables. To be honest , the Dektol on the tray was starting to lose its clear look because I had been sitting out for many hours. but were printed minutes apart so both are affected by the same variable.

The following are my subjective findings and I would like to ask out there if they are in sync with the scientific difference between these films.

- I found TMAX 400 to be more contrasty than TRI-X 400
- I found TRIX to have coarser grain than TMAX . TMAX grain is finer rendering what it seems sharper prints.
- I found TMAX to be less tolerable to high contrast scene than TRIX (this of course taking in consideration that both were develop at standard specs. in its respective developers.
- I have the impression that TMAX produces sharper print, probably due to finer grain.
- TMAX scans better than TRIX . No ICE, clean or sharpen functions were applied. They were scanned off of the paper final print.

In the nature print, look at the lower left bottom corner of both prints. Look how the TMAX is more contrasty rendering that vegetation more attractive.


thank you for your comments.

I have absolutely no interest in this "test" since not the same developer was used. Kind of pointless...

NB23 said:

I have absolutely no interest in this "test" since not the same developer was used. Kind of pointless...

Click to expand...

+1

There's nothing wrong with testing two different films in two different developers. The problem here isn't that the TMY is more contrasty in T-Max developer, but that the two films haven't been developed to the same contrast. You have a starting point with the first test. The best way to determine the contrast between the two films would be to do a sensitometric test, but you can also just reduce the TMY development time and retest until the shadows and highlights fall at the same point. The goal is to have two films developed to the same contrast so you can evaluate their characteristics.

Thank you for your effort. My respect you have done it APUG way, on prints. I just can't "read" it, I can't rotate monitor. Why here is 100 at one of the print?
To me TMAX is lifeless film. And TRI-X is the best, but it is rich people luxury I can't afford

Ko.Fe. said:

Thank you for your effort. My respect you have done it APUG way, on prints. I just can't "read" it, I can't rotate monitor. Why here is 100 at one of the print?
To me TMAX is lifeless film. And TRI-X is the best, but it is rich people luxury I can't afford

Click to expand...

What film do you use? Here in the UK at least the Kodak and ILFORD films are comparable in price.

Tom

Tom Kershaw said:

What film do you use? Here in the UK at least the Kodak and ILFORD films are comparable in price.

Tom

Click to expand...

One two buckle my shoe

http://shop.silverprint.co.uk/Bulk-Film-Rolls/products/758/

?

If I develop two films to the same level of contrast, what difference characteristics am I looking for then ?

lhalcong said:

If I develop two films to the same level of contrast, what difference characteristics am I looking for then ?

Click to expand...

Micro contrast, general tone, accutance, effective speed, apparent grain shape and size. you name it....

To me, Tri-X is a reference film, because it can stand under and over exposure pretty well and it suits my needs. Just my 2 cents...

Out of curiosity, why did you use two different developers? Both developers and films are designed to be used with each of them.

MattKing said:

Out of curiosity, why did you use two different developers? Both developers and films are designed to be used with each of them.

Click to expand...

I shoot basically two type of subjects. Nature and People. (Keep in mind though that I am speaking subjectively), I feel I like TRI-X on D76 better when shooting nature and I feel I like TMAX on TMAX Dev. when I shoot people. Again; I am going by what my heart feels is better. So at this time I wanted to test my choices against each other's type of subject which I had not done before with the same exact scene. In other words, I wanted to feel how TMAX on TMAX Dev looks on Nature vs. TRI-X. and then I wanted to see how TRI-X compares to TMAX team on people. Again , with exact same subject and conditions. Makes sense ?

I could take it further and compare film to film on same developer or dev. to dev. with same film, but then again the combinations of films/developers would be almost endless. I heard trying to do this would be a futile effort not to say the time and resources required to do such thing.

NB23 said:

I have absolutely no interest in this "test" since not the same developer was used. Kind of pointless...

Click to expand...

Agree. Fun test if you have fun testing things but all assumptions made at the end could have been easily reversed with differently applied exposure and development technique.

And this idea that a film is sharper because it's finer-grained is puzzling me. I find the opposite most times at least in "perceived" sharpness when viewing a resulting print at normal/typical viewing distances.

lhalcong said:

I shoot basically two type of subjects. Nature and People. (Keep in mind though that I am speaking subjectively), I feel I like TRI-X on D76 better when shooting nature and I feel I like TMAX on TMAX Dev. when I shoot people. Again; I am going by what my heart feels is better. So at this time I wanted to test my choices against each other's type of subject which I had not done before with the same exact scene. In other words, I wanted to feel how TMAX on TMAX Dev looks on Nature vs. TRI-X. and then I wanted to see how TRI-X compares to TMAX team on people. Again , with exact same subject and conditions. Makes sense ?

I could take it further and compare film to film on same developer or dev. to dev. with same film, but then again the combinations of films/developers would be almost endless. I heard trying to do this would be a futile effort not to say the time and resources required to do such thing.

Click to expand...

Interesting.

I completely overlooked the word "subjectively" in your initial post in this thread ("I decided to subjectively compare Kodak TMAX 400 and TRI-X 400 at box speed 400 ISO both.").

I would guess that I wasn't the only one, because so many of the responses were to the objective characteristics you referred to.

Although it would most likely have helped if you had included this post in your original one.

Lesson learned - one should read the post before responding.

These two films are VERY different. You spotted some of the differences already. But I would argue that TMY400 is capable of a longer contrast range if you are willing to correctly meter the shadows. You don't need to overexpose it to get good shadow detail like people have
traditionally done with Tri-X.

Thanks, Michael. Forgive my sheet film mentality.

I have started to shoot Tmax 100 developed in Xtol by a pro-lab. When scanning, I can play with post processing to get more or less contrast, lighter or darker shadows, etc. Would I be able to see a difference if I shot Tri-X considering the capabilities of post processing programs to change these variables pretty much at will? (I realize I'm comparing against Tmax 100 not 400. But the question would remain the same since all scans can be adjusted similarly in post).

Stephen Benskin said:

There's nothing wrong with testing two different films in two different developers. The problem here isn't that the TMY is more contrasty in T-Max developer, but that the two films haven't been developed to the same contrast. You have a starting point with the first test. The best way to determine the contrast between the two films would be to do a sensitometric test, but you can also just reduce the TMY development time and retest until the shadows and highlights fall at the same point. The goal is to have two films developed to the same contrast so you can evaluate their characteristics.

Click to expand...

+1

Alan Klein said:

I have started to shoot Tmax 100 developed in Xtol by a pro-lab. When scanning, I can play with post processing to get more or less contrast, lighter or darker shadows, etc. Would I be able to see a difference if I shot Tri-X considering the capabilities of post processing programs to change these variables pretty much at will? (I realize I'm comparing against Tmax 100 not 400. But the question would remain the same since all scans can be adjusted similarly in post).

Click to expand...

Alan,that depends very much on ones post -processing capabilities.Some PS wizards can walk a camel through the needle's eye with post.They just shoot to have something to manipulate.

Alan Klein said:

I have started to shoot Tmax 100 developed in Xtol by a pro-lab. When scanning, I can play with post processing to get more or less contrast, lighter or darker shadows, etc. Would I be able to see a difference if I shot Tri-X considering the capabilities of post processing programs to change these variables pretty much at will? (I realize I'm comparing against Tmax 100 not 400. But the question would remain the same since all scans can be adjusted similarly in post).

Click to expand...

Alan, Definitely you can do this and much more with Digital Post Processing, regardless of the film. You have access to manipulate global and local contrast in some ways that were possibly extremely difficult to impossible in the Darkroom (I hope I don't offend anybody). with just the click of a few buttons. Having scanned both of them, I can say the one big difference among others you will notice when scanning TRI-X is more visible and courser grain. I think TMAX was possibly designed more with scanning in mind. Even TMAX 400 scans better than TRIX in my view. TMAX on TMAX Dev (this is how this thread started) gives me more global and local contrasty pictures than TRIX based on the way I develop them. That along with the finer grain and the tones it gives me, I prefer TMAX when I know I am going to scan the image and/or photographing people.

What I learned though from this thread is that I could technically develop two different films to the same level of contrast with more technical emphasis so as to really be able to compare how one film stands vs. another. on the choice of developer. By the way, thank you everybody.

No matter how simple, or how wrong direction the question I post is, I always learn something from everyone's answers. It's great.

Dear Ihalcong....

You can...BUT : then its not real, its not pure, I can tell, anyone can tell......and don't get me wrong I know your are not doing this but if I see one more oversharpened, fiddled about with image with an imported sky I think I will vomit...

In saying that, if what you do makes you happy fine.. and believe it or not I am not a luddite or against d****l imaging at all.

And whilst I am on about it have a look at some of Illumiquests images in the gallery.

Perfect imperfections are just fine.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Simon R Galley said:

Dear Ihalcong....

You can...BUT : then its not real, its not pure, I can tell, anyone can tell......and don't get me wrong I know your are not doing this but if I see one more oversharpened, fiddled about with image with an imported sky I think I will vomit... :

Click to expand...

Don't hold back, Simon. Tell us how you really feel!

I'm glad somebody else feels how I do. I seem to be the odd photographer out at my camera club! Yes, Illumiquest's images are amazing!

lhalcong:

nice pictures, thanks for the test!
i hate to say this, but i can't tell the difference
between the images,
you could have put tmy on the other one &c
it would have seemed the same to me.
i like both films, but i won't use tmy with a electronic flash
it is no fun .. tri x likes flash OTOH ..

good to see your having fun !

Despite the problems with the testing protocol, this post was very informative for me. I have always liked the look of Tri-X better than TMAX, but I had no idea why. From my usual assumptions, the finer grain and long, linear scale of TMAX should be better. This test showed enough to give me some hints. First, Tri-X is more forgiving. Although I have over 60 years of experience, and I know and more or less apply all the right rules, I'm still basically a snapshot photographer - I tend to concentrate on the scene a lot more than the camera. Forgiveness helps. Next, Tri-X is less likely to block up the highlights. With even decent metering, you can usually, but not always, avoid very high contrast situations. Sometimes you can adjust development. But when the highlights block up, even in a very small area, the picture always looks terrible. And it usually can't be corrected in printing. Tri-X is easier to work with here. Third, the microcontrasts in the shadows look better to me. Again, the overall lower contrast seems to help.

nworth said:

Despite the problems with the testing protocol, this post was very informative for me. I have always liked the look of Tri-X better than TMAX, but I had no idea why. From my usual assumptions, the finer grain and long, linear scale of TMAX should be better. This test showed enough to give me some hints. First, Tri-X is more forgiving. Although I have over 60 years of experience, and I know and more or less apply all the right rules, I'm still basically a snapshot photographer - I tend to concentrate on the scene a lot more than the camera. Forgiveness helps. Next, Tri-X is less likely to block up the highlights. With even decent metering, you can usually, but not always, avoid very high contrast situations. Sometimes you can adjust development. But when the highlights block up, even in a very small area, the picture always looks terrible. And it usually can't be corrected in printing. Tri-X is easier to work with here. Third, the microcontrasts in the shadows look better to me. Again, the overall lower contrast seems to help.

Click to expand...

My experience has been the opposite, though I don't have near your experience level, so I could be off base. I'm assuming you developed both to the same contrast at grade 2? T-Max has always held highlights longer, and those highlights burn easier because the contrast hasn't tapered off. I do really like the spectral response of Tri-X though. I have a huge print above my fireplace taken with 35mm Tri-X that looks amazing.

Nathan King said:

My experience has been the opposite, though I don't have near your experience level, so I could be off base. I'm assuming you developed both to the same contrast at grade 2? T-Max has always held highlights longer, and those highlights burn easier because the contrast hasn't tapered off. I do really like the spectral response of Tri-X though. I have a huge print above my fireplace taken with 35mm Tri-X that looks amazing.

Click to expand...

The long scale of TMAX 400 indicates that it should hold highlights better. But the examples in this thread seem to show otherwise. Because I was somewhat unhappy with TMY, I don't have a lot of experience with it. Looking at my few negatives, it wasn't a bad problem for me, although there may be a few spots. I try for consistent development to about the same contrast, but I do little enough work now that it doesn't always work. Some of my TMY shots were 8X10, which calls for a different development scheme altogether. (I used D-76 in a Jobo tube.) I wasn't either real happy or real disappointed with that work, but I didn't think the negatives looked terribly good either.