Tmax, Tri-X and the Darkroom Cookbook

[bascom49]

I bought a copy of The Darkroom Cookbook by Steve Anchell and came across a few new (to me) tidbits of information as to the history of Kodak T grained films.
According to the author during the development of the new tabular grained films Kodak developed a less expensive way to manufacture the new T grain films using dyes.
Being that this new process had the added benefit of producing less grain in addition to being cheaper to produce, new versions of Tri-x and Plus-x were then brought to the market.

In the opinion of the author Plus-x emerged as a better product than the original with Tri-x suffering a loss of its original character and quality that it was known for.

Plus-x is now no more but, if Anchell is correct than basically Tri-x is no more as well and all discussions of using Tri-x and d76 for that 'characteristic Tri-x / d76 grain'
are somewhat nebulous.

So what are we all talking about here in 2014 when we are seeking the characteristic 'Tri-x / d76' look ? For those of us that never have used 'original' Tri-x what are
we talking about ? It would seem that what I thought was the classic Tri-x character images that I have made are apparently something else and that classic look is
lost here in the modern age of black and white film development.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Does Anchell give some sort of actual objective and comparative numbers and/or data like graphs to back his claim up?

I have used both versions of the film, and can tell that the newer version of Tri-X is less grainy, appears a wee bit less sharp, and has a slightly straighter tone curve, but it's not like all of a sudden Tri-X is some kind of TMax Junior or something.

You can change how your prints look by altering how you expose and process the film. Learn how to do that and learn how to get what you want from today's version, and then you don't have to worry about what yesterday's version did.

I guess what I'm saying is that don't worry about stuff like that. The old Tri-X isn't coming back anyway. The film is a small part of what our final results are going to look like; it is mostly down to us, our skill, our effort, and our hard work in the darkroom to obtain the results we desire. This involves how to expose and process film such that it does the most good with your particular paper and paper developer, and whatever treatment you give the prints in addition to developing the paper, such as toning.

 

[georg16nik]

...
So what are we all talking about here in 2014 when we are seeking the characteristic 'Tri-x / d76' look ? For those of us that never have used 'original' Tri-x what are we talking about ? It would seem that what I thought was the classic Tri-x character images that I have made are apparently something else and that classic look is lost here in the modern age of black and white film development.

Its still 'Tri-x / d76' look, but a 2014 one, perhaps Tri-x v.9?
Film manufacturers just pray not to get caught
Its still sorta ISO 400 film. Tri-x “something”

 

[bascom49]

I do agree to all points. However, there are scads of comparisons and references to the classic Tri-x / d76 characteristic look.
So, what is the 'look' ? To your point does it even matter ? Probably not. Which is my point as well.

 

[baachitraka]

...may be we are talking about the perfect marriage in modern times.

err...its not Tri-X / D-76 rather Tri-X / Rodinal(1+25)

 

[georg16nik]

I do agree to all points. However, there are scads of comparisons and references to the classic Tri-x / d76 characteristic look.
So, what is the 'look' ? To your point does it even matter ? Probably not. Which is my point as well.

Well, film manufacturers might sometimes adjust the current films according to materials and natural resources batch variations and you might add the cycles in naturally occurring background radiation, film storage on the distribution / customers end etc;

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I do agree to all points. However, there are scads of comparisons and references to the classic Tri-x / d76 characteristic look.
So, what is the 'look' ? To your point does it even matter ? Probably not. Which is my point as well.

I think discussing the 'look' of certain films a little bit dangerous. That's what I think. We work with our materials until we get what we want. There is, in my opinion, not a specific 'look' based on just what film and film developer we use. I think that whole concept is a bit of a misconception.

It truly is down to what we actually do with the materials that creates the 'look'. That's what's weird to me. It's like all these people who think that just because you shoot Tri-X, overexpose two or three stops, develop in Rodinal, and then print on hard grade paper your prints will magically look like Ralph Gibson's prints. It just doesn't work that way.

So, treated the same way all the way through the process, there is probably some difference between old and new Tri-X. But we would be doing ourselves a huge disservice to treat our materials that way. We manipulate them to get what we want. We manipulate them maybe even a lot. And how we manipulate the materials will make a far bigger difference than changes to the formulation of the film ever will.

 

[bascom49]

And why I was reading Anchell's book to begin with:

For no reason in particular I shoot a lot of Tmax 100 and 400 and develop in Xtol. Not sure why, it just happened that way. Things look good to me.
So, as I considered shooting with a different film and trying something new I thought I would try to figure out what does what and why in the hopes of creating new images
that have a different look than what I have so far and develop a bit of understanding along the way.
I am sure that those of you that are more skillful and advanced than I
can visualize a certain look or character and know how to achieve that look with chosen materials and techniques.
I hope to one day have that skill as well.

 

[Xmas]

<snip>
and then it comes down to printing. The best craftsmen I can think of all use different materials (one of them more or less uses whatever film he can get his hands on) and it doesn't matter one bit.

Confirmed eg if you pushed it you will have difficulty getting a normal print.

So you need to read the data sheet and meter well.

All mine are fuzzy so not any sort of crafts man.

But I buy the cheapest film in shop whatever brand etc.

& they all get 60 mins in Rodinal 1+100 @ 68F

very rare do I get to use Kodak cept for 5222, off cine reels.

 

[summicron1]

I do agree to all points. However, there are scads of comparisons and references to the classic Tri-x / d76 characteristic look.
So, what is the 'look' ? To your point does it even matter ? Probably not. Which is my point as well.

If memory of shooting high school sports with tri-x (in the 1960s) serves, the old "look" of tri-x in d-76 sucked. It had lots of grain and was too contrasty.

I love tri-x now, and am glad to have 400 feet of arista premium 400 in the freezer (after which, at today's prices, I'll switch to ilford) -- it has much finer grain, holds shadow detail beautifully and even when pushed to asa 1600 does an amazing job.

 

[Hatchetman]

I never shot the old Tri-X, but I am consistently surprised at the excellent results the "new" Tri-X gives me in a wide array of circumstances.

The prints I get are just gorgeous.

 

[flavio81]

The "new" Tri-X, that is, 400TX, is an excellent film. Just use it and be happy. If you don't like it there is always HP5+ which is an excellent film as well.

 

[cliveh]

I am interested to read PEs take on this OP.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'd rather shoot TMY400 any day of the week rather than Tri-X, and never could figure out why some people think there's something special
about it. Guess if you want snapshots that look like something in a 1950's LIFE magazine ....

 

[Pioneer]

I agree Drew Wiley. I prefer both of Kodak's tabular grain films right now.

Or perhaps EK 5222 which seems quite flexible.

 

[Hatchetman]

if you want snapshots that look like something in a 1950's LIFE magazine ....

And this would be a problem why?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I really like Tri-X 400, and have used quite a bit of it, maybe 500 rolls over the years. It doesn't have the resolution of TMax 400 (actually TMax 3200 has higher resolution), and it has a more prominent grain. It also has slightly different tonality and can't record as wide a brightness range as Tmax 400.
But, there is something in how it prints that I just like. It's so... together, for the lack of a better word.

But in the end, I could live happily ever after with either TMax 400 or Tri-X (or HP5+ which is what I usually purchase). The differences are not great enough for the work that I do that I can say that any one of those films present an advantage that will make a significant difference. I like how they all look, honestly, and I don't even pay very close attention to whatever differences there might be. To me that would be focusing on the wrong thing. In my opinion they are all more than good enough.

 

[David Lyga]

Bob Schwalberg, my idol in the 1970s (Popular Photography column) was a decided pragmatist and realist. He recommended NOT using Tri-X for sunlit scenes. I know why. Anyone who lived through the OLD Tri-X would know why: grain, LACK of excellent tonality with contrasty scenes, good for available light, period.

Today's Tri-X is like the slower films once were: easy to acquire a near-complete characteristic curve with little toe and little shoulder to edge out a full continuum of tonality. Today's Tri-X is far more like the T Max films, both 100 and 400. I consider that to be a great improvement. Today's Tri-X demands no feeble 'excuses' which would otherwise serve to deflect the attainment top quality prints; likewise, it requires no processing sloppiness, either. - David Lyga

 

[Gerald C Koch]

IIRC, when Kodak consolidated all their coating to a single facility Plus-X and Tri-X were reformulated to use some T-grain technology. It was at this time that Kodak renamed their B&W films as 125PX, 320TXP and 400TX to indicate that a major change had occurred..

 

[bdial]

Just buy some and make pictures.
I recently enlarged some 35mm 400TX to 13x20 (inches) and the prints look beautiful, not something I can imagine doing with the Tri-X I grew up with.

 

[NB23]

Grain is so small today! Even my 20x24 prints from tri-x pushed to 1600 or tmax3200 hold up very, very, very well! I sometimes wish for more grain.

I'm glad that this discussion is finally taking place. Tri-x debusqued!

However, I have to admiy; this new Tri-x is seriously amazing. I love hp5 and have 100 more rolls to go through, i also have 250'rolls of tmax100 to go through, so
i can say I'm not blindly biased with tri-x. But all my occasionsl tri-x rolls that i've shot in between my hp5 and tmax100 rolls have given me such wonderful results, I'm totally dumbfounded. This thing can take a serious beating, a serious pushing, and come back with extraordinary results. My prints soeak for themselves.

If kodak wasnt going crazy on their prices I'd seriously consider 20 bulk rolls of tri-x and I'd match a project to it just to give me a reason to use that wonderful stuff. It's that good. My prints reveal this week after week after week after week. The odd tri-x roll ive shot here and there always end up floating at the top.

 

[BetterSense]

I do in fact find modern tri x to be "tmax junior". There is no point in buying it and I would not miss it because tmax is better in every way. When I want something different, I use HP5 which actually has a look besides just being a grainier less-sharp version of tmax.

 

[Hatchetman]

LOOK AT ALL THAT GRAIN!!

 

[Photo Engineer]

I bought a copy of The Darkroom Cookbook by Steve Anchell and came across a few new (to me) tidbits of information as to the history of Kodak T grained films.
According to the author during the development of the new tabular grained films Kodak developed a less expensive way to manufacture the new T grain films using dyes.
Being that this new process had the added benefit of producing less grain in addition to being cheaper to produce, new versions of Tri-x and Plus-x were then brought to the market.

I have not read the new edition of the Darkroom Cookbook, but others have quoted small snippets of the book here on APUG. If correct in your quotation (or your "abstract"), this information is not correct.

Kodak is using 2 electron sensitization which uses an Osmium complex with a dye to give more speed with the same grain. They also use dye layering to give more speed with the same grain. This is NOT what you describe and does NOT save money. After all, these dyes are expensive and Osmium is a really expensive heavy metal.

So, what Kodak did was develop a method of producing higher speed at the same grain or the same speed at lower grain. Either way, the customer wins, but the costs go up a bit to cover the chemicals and the R&D.

PE

 

[Rick A]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

For all you conjecturors.