Tri-X 320 vs 400

sbelyaev · Nov 29, 2006

I tried Tri-X 320 (120 size) and found it to be a very nice film but its grain was not homogeneous. For some reasons the film would have grains of different sizes and shapes. I didn't find the grain to be very attractive (I tried different developers: rodinal, perceptol, HC110).
Does Tri-X 400 have the same grain structure?
Thank you.

SuzanneR · Nov 29, 2006

They are very different films, and I would say the Tri-x has more grain.. You might want to try Kodak's t-max line of films, or Ilford's delta line of films for the "T grain" emulsions. The grain has a pattern. The grain isn't as arbitrary (for lack of a better word) looking.

Tom Hoskinson · Nov 29, 2006

Suzanne Revy said:
They are very different films, and I would say the Tri-x has more grain.. You might want to try Kodak's t-max line of films, or Ilford's delta line of films for the "T grain" emulsions. The grain has a pattern. The grain isn't as arbitrary (for lack of a better word) looking.

Take a look at my post on this thread:

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

sbelyaev · Nov 29, 2006

I don't mind to have some grain on the picture as long as it looks nice and sharp. I tried Delta 100 but didn't like the result (developed in DDX). The film is smooth at lower magnification, but at higher magnification 11X14 (645 negative) the grain was fuzzy. I have not tried TMax. I thought that it would look similar to Delta.

Tom Hoskinson · Nov 29, 2006

sbelyaev said:
I don't mind to have some grain on the picture as long as it looks nice and sharp. I tried Delta 100 but didn't like the result (developed in DDX). The film is smooth at lower magnification, but at higher magnification 11X14 (645 negative) the grain was fuzzy. I have not tried TMax. I thought that it would look similar to Delta.

You could try a higher dilution of DDX and using less agitation together with a longer developing time.

Then, If you still don't get sharp grain edges with Delta 100 and/or Kodak TMAX, try one of these developers: Pyrocat-HD, P or MC, Microdol-X diluted 3:1, Beutler; Crawley's FX2 or FX1

sbelyaev · Nov 29, 2006

Recently I bought a photo (original) by Erwitt (Nixon jabbing Khrushev, Moscow 1959). The evlargment is huge (12x18 inches from a 35mm negative) but overall the print looks nice. Surprisingly the grain is smaller and tighter than the grain of Tri-x 320, Delta 100, or APX400 (645 format, properly developed).
All modern emulsions and developers were unavailable back then.
I like HP5+ and ApX400 in 120 format, but for a 35mm camera they do not work. I have to pull HP5+ to obtain a good result (IE200). APX400 in 35mm version looks like a completely different film than 645 version. It looks muddy (different developers)
So I'm looking for a faster film ?400 for a 35mm camera.

Tom Hoskinson · Nov 29, 2006

I like Kodak TMax 400 TMY. I use it in 35mm, 120 rollfim and sheet film sizes developed in Pyrocat-MC. It never looks muddy.

For maximum EFS situations I use the RAF Pyro-Metol Developer (APUG Chemical Recipes).

Tom Stanworth · Nov 29, 2006

Delta films have a very crisp grain structure for my eyes. Tmax and older tech films far less so. I cannot compare 320 with 400 TriX but have found the 40 at least to have a reasonably fine grain structure which looks 'classical' in ID11,Xtol or pretty well anything. Tmax and Acros to my eyes have a mushier grain than Deltas...

Tom Hoskinson · Nov 29, 2006

Tom Stanworth said:
Delta films have a very crisp grain structure for my eyes. Tmax and older tech films far less so. I cannot compare 320 with 400 TriX but have found the 40 at least to have a reasonably fine grain structure which looks 'classical' in ID11,Xtol or pretty well anything. Tmax and Acros to my eyes have a mushier grain than Deltas...

If your TMAX and ACROS grain looks "mushy" the cause is most likely your exposure and developing procedures.

JLP · Nov 29, 2006

Can second that, both TMAX and ACROS are very far from being mushy at least seen with my eyes, in fact it is hard to find the grain.
Develop both in Pyrocat-P

jan

sbelyaev · Nov 29, 2006

Does anyone have experience with both tri-x 320 and 400?

Tom Hoskinson · Nov 29, 2006

I can only get Tri-X 400 in 35mm. I usually develop Tri-X 400 in Pyrocat-MC and I have compared it with Tri-X 400 exposed to the same subjects and developed to the same Contrast Index in undiluted Kodak D-76.

I have not been able to get Tri-x 320 in 35mm.

I use a lot of Tri-x 320 in 120 rollfilm, 4x5 sheet film, 5x7 sheet film and 8x10 sheet film. I usually develop it in Pyrocat-MC and I have compared it with Tri-X 320 exposed to the same subjects and developed to the same Contrast Index in undiluted Kodak D-76.

Alex Hawley · Nov 29, 2006

sbelyaev said:
Does anyone have experience with both tri-x 320 and 400?

Yep, I do. I've shot 400 in both 35mm and 120, 320 in 4x5 sheets only. Developed in HC110, Xtol, rodinal, ABC pyro, PMK, and Pyrocat-HD. Pushed many 35mm rolls to asa 1600 and enlarged them to 11x14. I think one could only accurately assess your problem by viewing the prints. I've never really noticed the problem you are describing. Its pretty commonly known that the effective film speed is 200 or 160 unless using one of the stand developemnt techniques. But, yet, I have ran it at 1600, developed in Xtol, enlarged to 11x14, and have never thought the grain was objectionable in any way.

Since you are having somewhat similar problems with several different films, sounds like something may be amiss with your chemistry or your development techniques. It may be something as simple as the water you are using. Try a roll or two using distilled water with your developer and see what happens.

fhovie · Nov 29, 2006

I use tri-x a lot in 120, 4x5 and 8x10. The newest version has much tighter grain than it used to. In 120 and developed in XTOL it has very sharp fine grain. In LF and developed in p'cat, the grain is slightly larger but the tonal curve is richer in the mid tones and it has greater accutance. I use tri-x where I need the speed (1600 for MF) or I need dynamic range - (shadows at f2.8 and highlights at f45 or more) In LF, I shoot it at ASA 200 and can accomodate over 10 f-stops of light range.

If I need to expand the scene - (3 or 4 stop range) so it will not be muddy on the paper, I shoot FP4 and use semi stand development that easily takes the 3 stop range and makes it contrasty. For me it has more to do with contrast control than anything else.

sbelyaev · Nov 29, 2006

Actually I had that "grain problem" only with Tri-x 320 120 size (IE160-200).
APX400 (120 size) and HP5+ (35mm and 120) had very sharp and uniform grain and great tonality, but I had to pull them (IE200) in order to achieve that result.
I need a faster film in 35mm format. I tried APX400 (IE400)(35mm) in DDX but it looked mediocre, HP5+ was slightly better.
I have never had any experience with Tri-x 400, that is why I asked my question. I thought that tri-x 320 and tri-x 400 are different emulsion and ther results should differ to some extent.
I'd like to use pyro, but apparently it decreased speed of the film.
I guess i'll order some tmax and tri-x400 and experiment a little bit..)

Thanks everyone for your contribution!

Alex Hawley · Nov 29, 2006

sbelyaev said:
I'd like to use pyro, but apparently it decreased speed of the film.
I guess i'll order some tmax and tri-x400 and experiment a little bit..)

Thanks everyone for your contribution!

In general, pyro developers are not the ones for increased speed. Like I said above, I had good results from TX400 at 1600 using Xtol. It actually had far smaller grain that the Tmax 3200 had.

The 320 and 400 are different emulsions. The 320 was originally intended for studio use with tungsten lighting. The 400 sheet film was discontinued several years ago. Likewise, I don't think the 320 is available in 35mm. Just some more of Big K's infinite wisdom I guess. Overall, I preferred the 400.

Rolleiflexible · Nov 29, 2006

Alex, can you address the question put earlier, and describe the differences you see in the two Tri-X emulsions? I confess that I use them both, in 120, 4x5 and 5x7 sizes, and do not see a difference in the negatives. Everybody says they are very different emulsions, and I do use different recipes for exposing and processing them. But as I said, I don't see anything in the finished negatives that would allow me to distinguish one from the other. I recently shot both emulsions in 120 roll film for a studio shoot, hoping to see a difference, but -- no.

Anybody?

Sanders.

htmlguru4242 · Nov 30, 2006

I've used the 400 in 35mm and the 320 in rollfilm. The emulsions look slightly different grain-wise, though I cant really come up with a specific description.

The 400 pushes more easily; you can get a good EI 3200 out of it and it still looks good. I've taken the 320 to ~EI 800,and I don't think that it could go much farther than 1600.

The 320 in a reversal process using D-76 also gives nice, contrasty, detailed positives.

The films are different, but I've not done extensive enough testing to really find a major consistent difference with both under normal conditions.

Amund · Nov 30, 2006

I don`t have an issue with grain and TXP at all, developed in T-Max or Ilford DDX it`s very finegrained and looks beautiful IMO.

TXP in 120, T-Max developer.

TXP in 4x5, PMK Pyro

fschifano · Nov 30, 2006

sbelyaev said:
Does anyone have experience with both tri-x 320 and 400?

Yes. Tri-X 320 and Tri-X 400 are very different films. Tri-X 320 has a longer toe which can be a problem in hard light (high contrast) settings. This is less of a problem with Tri-X 400. It is slightly less grainy than Tri-X 400, but not by much. Kodak lists RMS granularity at 16 for Tri-X 320 and at 17 for Tri-X 400. The most obvious difference between the two, if you examine the characteristic curves, is that Tri-X 320 builds density more quickly than Tri-X 400. It is a more contrasty film, all other things being equal or nearly so. You can use it in outdoor lighting situations, but it is at it's best where the lighting is completely controlled. Tri-X 400 performs better in less than controlled situations.

TMax 400, on the other hand, bears almost no resemblance to either flavor of Tri-X. For starters, grain is almost non-existant by comparison. Any apparent grain you get in a print will also be very regular looking. I won't go so far as to say that it resembles the regularity of a pixel matrix, but it's reminiscent of that.

fhovie · Nov 30, 2006

Of course, not shooting "cute little films (35mm)" very much, my concept of grain might be different than some. I used to shoot tech pan to not have grain and learned that sharpness and grain go together. Techpan was grainless and Tri-x was sharp. I don't consider TXP to be grainy - TMZ is grainy. Not to take anything away from TMY, TXP is bullet proof - you can make a silk purse with a sows ear with Tri-x. 20x30 enlargements from 6x6 with tri-x look great (XTOL). There is a look I get from Tri-x that I cannot get from Tmax 400. The tonality of Tri-x in pyrocat-p (probably because of p-aminophenol - rodinol) is richer than tmax-400. Yes - tri-x is not as contrasty - for both good and bad - tri-x has slightly larger grain - but not as much as some think. And .. tri-x suffers from reciprocity failure making tmax-400 great for pinhole and long exposures. I like tmax. When I go into the woods, I use tri-x. It will not block up - It will record the detail in the shadows. It pushes to 1600 without much increase in grain and it gives me the sharpness and tonality that I get no where else. If tri-x went away, I would use tmax-400 without heartburn. But for uncertain conditions and tricky exposures, I'll always take tri-x as a first choice.

Alex Hawley · Nov 30, 2006

Sanders McNew said:
Alex, can you address the question put earlier, and describe the differences you see in the two Tri-X emulsions? Sanders.

Sanders, I can't offer any better explanation than what htmlguru said. The 400 speed I think is better at expansion/contraction than the 320 is and therefore has more latitude.

I could be quite happy if Tri-X was the only B&W film that was available. The only reason I don't use for my 8x10 work is because of its expense in that size. All the Kodak 8x10 films are quite expensive. In the last couple years, I've drifted away from it just because of my disgust with La Grande` K. But that disgust is no fault of the film. I found many 4x5 and 120 Tri-X negs in my father's stuff that were taken nearly 50 years ago. They are still quite lovely to print.

Gerald Koch · Dec 4, 2006

sbelyaev said:
I tried Tri-X 320 (120 size) and found it to be a very nice film but its grain was not homogeneous. For some reasons the film would have grains of different sizes and shapes. I didn't find the grain to be very attractive (I tried different developers: rodinal, perceptol, HC110).
Does Tri-X 400 have the same grain structure?
Thank you.

The fact that the grain size varies quit a bit is typical of traditional fast films such as either of the tri-x's. This accounts for their wide exposure latitude. To get more uniformity use a t-grain or delta film.

fotod69 · Feb 5, 2007

sbelyaev said:
I tried Tri-X 320 (120 size) and found it to be a very nice film but its grain was not homogeneous. For some reasons the film would have grains of different sizes and shapes. I didn't find the grain to be very attractive (I tried different developers: rodinal, perceptol, HC110).
Does Tri-X 400 have the same grain structure?
Thank you.

I have tested both Tri-x 400 and 320 in side by side tests developed in Rodinal and found the 400 to have more character. The grain structure in 400 has the classic look of Tri-x and the local contrast is slightly higher as well. In my discussions with other photographers their findings were similar. It feels like the new Tri-X 320 is is slightly leaning towards the Tmax films.

Tom Stanworth · Feb 5, 2007

Tom Hoskinson said:
If your TMAX and ACROS grain looks "mushy" the cause is most likely your exposure and developing procedures.

exposure and development is not the problem. Fine grain and sharpness are not the same thing. Fine grain films often lack visual bite and apparent acutance. Tmax 100 is the worst culprit with Acros running a close second. This is why I use pyro devs (and other FX39 or Rodinal) with these film. The grain is so fine you do not get that perception of sharpness without an acutance developer. microcontrast is generally low too for my tastes too.

Traditional grained films can be run thru fine grained devs and seem to me at least to retain a fair bit of acutance. I find fine grained films in smoothie devs the least inspiring combo for general shooting as nothing has an edge.

Barry Thornton's Edge of Darkness explains this all very well.

Back to the original question, the grain in a lot of Salgados work is very pleasant and i recall that his portraits were shot on TriX 320 and developed in an Adox developer, but cannot recall which one. Some portraits were on Tmax 100 too, but I have no idea what these were run thru.

Tri-X 320 vs 400

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency