Tri-X 320 or 400. What actually is the big difference of the two? I have used 320 but 400 is a lot easier to get. Is this a personal preference or what? Any enlightenment on this. I love the 125PX but this is a different love affair!
TXP is designed for studio portraiture and has a different characteristic curve and other differences from what's now designated 400TX. TXP isn't available in 35mm. See Kodak's tech bulletin and the later posts in this thread: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/59724-tri-x-pan-what.html#post764582 Lee
Txp does a better job with mids and highs somewhat at the expense of shadows. Tx is flatter throughout the tonal range and is probably a better general purpose film. I don't know much about B&W so I'm sure someone will come along and correct me or add better information.
Partially true. The 320 also comes in 120 and 220 rolls. I use both films a lot and prefer the tonal range of the 320. For high contrast situations the 400 is better.
I stand corrected, I use the Tri-X sheet film and new that came in 320. I just assumed that all Tri-X roll film was 400 as that was all I had seen. Roger
I also heard that TXP was designed to be retouched, having a special base or something. Being a youth, I don't even know what film retouching is or how it's done, but that's what I heard.
I find the grain in TXP to be somewhat finer and a "tighter" overall tone with it. TX is easier to get, has more contrast control and is almost impossible to blow out highlights (within reason of course). Ansel Adams used TXP in HC-110 which is a very difficult combination to get right, although it looks good when it works; TX in D-76 (or an equivalent) is much easier to use and still gives great results. TX in HC-110 is very difficult to get right and often leads to difficult negatives.
Thanks, some good information. I am trying to get my film/developer combination together. I read somewhere here in apug that once you have a combination nailed down you will understand it and then go for more. You would probably be shocked on how many developers I have on my shelf that I don't use anymore.
TXP, as said, is primarily a studio/portrait film. It is often used elsewhere with great success, but that's another story. Let's suppose you did a portrait of a person who has facial defects; scars, acne, mole, etc. A retoucher "paints" it away with dyes and a brush. TXP has a rough base so the dye will stick better. Now it's done with a mouse.
I've been using TXP 320 in 220 rolls for a while, rated 200 ASA, developed in D76 1:1... and TX 400 in 35mm rolls, rated 320 ASA and developed in D76 1:1... in my experience TXP has less fog and wider tonal range... TXP is hard to find, I have to special order it.
Ok now for my uneducated question. Who would one film have more fog than the other. I always thought fogging came from light on your film due to mishandling
I would think there should be no fog on TX or TXP unless there are light leaks in the camera or developing tank. Assuming that the film is loaded into developing tanks in total darkness. Age fog would be a problem only with out of date film. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.
My guess is that we're talking b+f - the inherent density of unexposed but developed film. i.e. TriX has a higher base plus fog density than TriX-P. Bob H
