I finally got around to comparing T-MAX 400 with Tri-X. I shot some color charts, a gray scale chart, and some other trinkets. I developed in XTOL 1:1.
TMY was noticeably sharper on the finer details and a bit less grainy. I think Tri-X's large details look a bit sharper - the black print on the Kodak chart for example. A bit more contrast in the midtones? However, with a modest enlargement, it becomes clear that they aren't as sharp.
While TMY did have a bit finer grain, it doesn't make Tri-X look like a grain fest or anything. In the 8x10 print, Tri-X looked grainier mostly in the solid tone of the background wall.
The tonality of both were fine. The TMY looked slightly underdeveloped (my first time), but it printed just fine - shorter printing time than the TX, but the print exposures look pretty much the same. Oh yeah, and TX looks to be more sensitive to red compared to TMY. At least in this test.
TMZ shot in this same situation at 800 was significantly grainier. The difference between TMZ and the other two was far larger than the difference between TX and TMY. It was also interesting to see that TMZ was more or less as sharp as the TX when it came to small details.
I will say my prints aren't *exactly* matched, and that surely influences the outcome. For example, the last couple dark tones in the Tri-X picture look more compressed than in the TMY picture. I guess this is partially due to the toe in Tri-X, though could be influenced by my printing. And if I need to tweak my dev time of TMY up a little bit, that would give a bit more contrast in the midtones.
I'm kind of confused why people make such a big deal out of the differences of these two films. I didn't find TMY particularly hard to shoot or process. And if no one had told me, I'd probably have a very difficult time looking at either print (without looking at the fine detail up close) and saying which one was TMY or TX.
Last interesting tidbit (and out of the scope of this site) - the grain differences between the two were really downplayed when scanned at 4000 dpi on a Coolscan.
TMY was noticeably sharper on the finer details and a bit less grainy. I think Tri-X's large details look a bit sharper - the black print on the Kodak chart for example. A bit more contrast in the midtones? However, with a modest enlargement, it becomes clear that they aren't as sharp.
While TMY did have a bit finer grain, it doesn't make Tri-X look like a grain fest or anything. In the 8x10 print, Tri-X looked grainier mostly in the solid tone of the background wall.
The tonality of both were fine. The TMY looked slightly underdeveloped (my first time), but it printed just fine - shorter printing time than the TX, but the print exposures look pretty much the same. Oh yeah, and TX looks to be more sensitive to red compared to TMY. At least in this test.
TMZ shot in this same situation at 800 was significantly grainier. The difference between TMZ and the other two was far larger than the difference between TX and TMY. It was also interesting to see that TMZ was more or less as sharp as the TX when it came to small details.
I will say my prints aren't *exactly* matched, and that surely influences the outcome. For example, the last couple dark tones in the Tri-X picture look more compressed than in the TMY picture. I guess this is partially due to the toe in Tri-X, though could be influenced by my printing. And if I need to tweak my dev time of TMY up a little bit, that would give a bit more contrast in the midtones.
I'm kind of confused why people make such a big deal out of the differences of these two films. I didn't find TMY particularly hard to shoot or process. And if no one had told me, I'd probably have a very difficult time looking at either print (without looking at the fine detail up close) and saying which one was TMY or TX.
Last interesting tidbit (and out of the scope of this site) - the grain differences between the two were really downplayed when scanned at 4000 dpi on a Coolscan.
