Tri-X 320 vs 400

[John Simmons]

Yes, I use both films extensively. My experiences are that Tri-X 320 has finer grain and builds up density faster than Tri-X 400. For high contrast or night scenes I always go with the Tri-X 400. Your description of the grain that you did not find attractive is kind of vague. You really should experiment with various developers but I can say that Tri-X 320 can be as fine or finer grained than T-Max 400...unless you are using Xtol where T-Max 400 has practically invisible grain.

 

[Petzi]

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.

It is Calbe A49, also sold as Adox A49. Formerly Orwo A49.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

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.

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.