TMY or Tri-X for 4x5

[Amund]

I want to try som ISO 400 film, but can`t decide between these to, what are your experiences with these films? Are there other films I should look at?
I`m using TMX, Acros and J&C Pro 100 now.

I develop mainly in XTOL and Pyrocat HD, and some Rodinal.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Tri-X is beautiful and TMY is ugly, unless you happen to prefer TMY, in which case TMY is beautiful, and Tri-X is ugly, which is to say--buy a couple of boxes of film, and see which you like.

 

[Amund]

Tri-X is beautiful and TMY is ugly, unless you happen to prefer TMY, in which case TMY is beautiful, and Tri-X is ugly, which is to say--buy a couple of boxes of film, and see which you like.

Point taken, I`ll try both

 

[rhphoto]

I shot Tri-x for years on 4x5, and I found it really easy to work with. Keep in mind its rating is ISO 320 in the Professional emulsion (4x5), and 400 in the 35mm version. T-Max is 400. But then I always rated them at about half their actual speed - this because of an older lens with a certain amount of flare, plus I just like a well exposed neg. With a newer multi-coated lens, you could rate it higher, and of course it depends on your developer, agitation, and enlarger lighting source. I just found T-max to be a bit touchy. It's probably my laziness or lack of thorough testing, but I always could rely on Tri-X to have a fair amount of flexibility. And for some reason, I thought the "feel" or "atmosphere" of Tri-X was more realistic. Pretty darn subjective, but there it is.

 

[photobackpacker]

John Sexton's Books:

Quiet Light - c1990 - 55% tri-x/plus-x; 33% Tmax; 12% other
Listen to the Trees - c1994 - 31% tri-x/plus-x; 71% TMax; 6% Other
Places of Power - c2000 - 100% Tmax

But what does he know!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think Sexton likes T-Max because of the way he prints. He probably wants a relatively neutral neg that he can manipulate in the darkroom just the way he likes it, and he avoids dramatic effects.

Tri-X conveys a stronger sense of line, in my opinion. Sexton's prints are beautiful, but they aren't exactly the style I'm trying to emulate.

 

[Ornello]

I want to try som ISO 400 film, but can`t decide between these to, what are your experiences with these films? Are there other films I should look at?
I`m using TMX, Acros and J&C Pro 100 now.

I develop mainly in XTOL and Pyrocat HD, and some Rodinal.

I'm afraid I don't care for either. HP5 Plus would be my choice.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Sexton

Doesn't Mr. Sexton use Tamx100 not TMY? That's what I thought. Two different animals. David-Tmy is actually one of the best films ever made for alternate process. Check Dick Arentz's book on Platinum. I've used it for that but could never make a silver print with it.
REgards, Peter

 

[photobackpacker]

In Places of Power, he lists both - Tmax100 predominantly but 10 of 79 images were with Tmax 400

 

[ChuckP]

They should be very different films. TMY has more of a general straight line curve. Sheet film Tri-x is that long toe steep highlight "studio" film. The Tri-x should have somewhat darker midtones and more highlight contrast. I think that Tri-x needs more exposure to get the shadows off the toe but TMY also needs careful exposure to avoid losing shadow detail with underexposure. TMY has better receprocity so is faster in low light. That's where I use it. A better general film may be HP5. Include it in your testing. I've gotten good prints out of all 3.

 

[Ole]

I'm afraid I don't care for either. HP5 Plus would be my choice.

My choise too. I've tried both, and returned to Ilford (and EFKE for slower films).

 

[Donald Qualls]

FWIW, though I prefer TMY over 400TX in 120 size, I use old TX in 35 mm -- if you can't avoid grain, use it!

However, I've been hearing that among whatever changes led to relabeling the T-Max from TMY to 400TMY, Kodak added a UV absorbing layer that makes this film unsuitable for UV sensitive alt process printing like Cyano, salted paper, and platinum. The same may also be true of Tri-X, which has been coated in the same plant as TMY for a year or two now. I haven't tried either of them for alt-process, so can't say for certain -- just passing on what I've read.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Jay, I recall it as being both TMX and TMY, but it's information I read either here, on photo.net, or on the Large Format Forum, not something I know from firsthand experience. The only alt-process prints I've made are cyanotype from Fomapan 100 in 9x12 cm, which works very nicely if I get the right combination of negative contrast and contrast enhancer (or lack thereof) in sensitizing the paper. I need to make some more of those; I've got a couple images that print well enough and look good enough they might be saleable...