Tri-X 400 @ 200... Why?

It's not that TX requires EI200 for all scenes.
It's just that EI400 is not optimal for sunlight, as it's not optimal for the smallest possible grain either.
For portraiture, EI200 is very good.

First and foremost you must test you equipment, specifically your light meter. I own two Pentax digital meters, one I expose Tri-X for 200, the other I expose Tri-X for 320. Both give me the same exposure.

Stats said:

First and foremost you must test you equipment, specifically your light meter. I own two Pentax digital meters, one I expose Tri-X for 200, the other I expose Tri-X for 320. Both give me the same exposure.

Click to expand...

Aren't these calibratable so you can set them the same?

Both meters have been serviced at Quality Light Metric (which unfortunately is no longer in business). The point I am trying to make is that you have to arrive at your own exposure index through film (and equipment) testing.

Moose22 said:

Thread more than 15 years old.

Not sure the dude you're asking questions of is even here.

Click to expand...

True, he was last seen way back in 2015 and no-one seems to have even commented on your post. I guess because it had really become irrelevant to the discussion. In fact I am unsure if his absence was ever relevant beyond the immediate period of his first posting

When I read his opening post he doesn't seem to be actually looking for help. He was saying that at 400 in his process from exposure to final negative he was satisfied with that speed so why use any other speed. If this was a question then it seems to have been very much in the form of a rhetorical question. The ensuing 15 years of discussion was really irrelevant to him but does seem to have caused friction between members.

There doesn't seem to be a wry smile emoji I can use

pentaxuser

I just didn't want the guy asking a question to wonder why he was being ignored by the guy he was asking. It's easy to miss that you're answering 2012 instead of 2022 or whatever.

And don't bother with emojicons for me. They just make things harder to read, I'm too dumb to know what they mean.

As always, just my opinion, and I'm not interested in making others' opinions closer to mine:
From my point of view, it doesn't matter how old a thread is, or if its creator is reading or not.
I see two reasons for these threads.
One has a secondary level of relevance, and another one is the big reason IMO.
The secondary one is what us, present day forum members, can learn and teach from/to ourselves while we discuss.
The main one is what a lot more people, beyond the few of us alive yet, will read in the future.
For both groups, and about OP's question why:
1) Metering and placement differ: apart from metering differently, some people place shadows' darkest details in zone 3 while others prefer zone 4: this means people actually talk about EI400 and EI200 but they may be talking about the same exposure exactly.
2) One of the reasons for giving a negative more light than box speed is, with a stop more light than box speed, grain is less visible. Anyway, Tri-X is a film for grain presence, compared to other films.
3) ISO400 films behave differently. At EI400, for instance, both Tri-X and HP5+ can be used, but IMO even though both show different, usable tonalities at box speed, Tri-X seems to benefit more than HP5+ with a stop more light. This makes me use HP5+ at EI800 commonly, without the slightly high contrast that implies for Tri-X: both films are fine for overcast at EI800, but HP5+ has a lower native contrast that's better not only for pushing, but also for mixing overcast/sunny scenes in the same roll without blocked highlights/shadows when I go to EI800. That's very important for street, and has no relevance for tripod work.
4) It depends on film and developer: some developers (e.g. metol ones) make films look better with a stop more light than box speed. But that stop more light makes no sense, with the same film, when a different developer is used, say D-76 or ID-11.
5) Most considerations are important for 35mm photography, but they're different or nearly irrelevant for larger formats.
6) Exposure/development under soft light requires less precision than under direct sunlight: as for soft light scenes we use just a part of our negative's latitude, we can expose at 100, 200, 400, 800 and 1600, and we'll be able to find a development time/agitation scheme that makes a good negative for wet printing. But under direct sunlight, we use all our film's latitude, so things really benefit from a more precise behaviour. As I've written here many times, students get confused because they read half truths: things that are true for overcast only, or for direct sunlight only, and some posts/books don't specify that.
7) My recommendation for students is they should meter at box speed always, and in soft light always: never under direct sunlight. Then they should develop in a way that makes it possible to print soft overcast negatives with multigrade filters close to number 3, and more contrasty sunny negatives with filters close to number 1. This implies development times that are shorter/more diluted/less agitated than those recommended by manufacturers, which are in general better for medium contrast scenes only.
8) Scanning doesn't allow us to see the real/optimal use of photographic materials, because real film's tone disappears inside the hardware/software characteristics and protocols as soon as the all-new tone digital photograph is made by the scanner.
9) For sheets, because of the possibility of their individual development, we can use the zone system: meter the shadows, meter the highlights, check the difference, and decide placement and development. That's easy, I mean, clear and with few doubts. But when we mix overcast and sun scenes in a roll, it's a different story. Not only because of those two very different types of scene contrast, but also because under direct sunlight shadows vary drastically: depending on bounced light and clouds, and on the other hand buildings, trees, etc., those shadows range from 3 to 9 stops less light than direct sunlight, so in case of mixed scenes, what we must care about is not burning highlights (gentle development), but we can't really expose for the shadows: darker shadows will be darker, while scenes with cleaner shadows will show that too. In other words, individual negatives allow us to use the zone system, while rolls for mixed scenes remind us of slide film exposure and development: those care for highlights, letting different types of shadows fall where they were in the real scene.
10) Another BIG fact for confusion is all data and results come from two different types of testing: some of us test for the "speed" of medium grays, and some of us for the "speed" of Zone I: both imply considerable differences.

Juan Valdenebro said:

The main one is what a lot more people, beyond the few of us alive yet, will read in the future.

Click to expand...

For some threads, this fills me with dread .
But generally, I agree.
I just wish people would note in their post reviving a dormant thread that it has been dormant for X years!

MattKing said:

For some threads, this fills me with dread .
But generally, I agree.
I just wish people would note in their post reviving a dormant thread that it has been dormant for X years!

Click to expand...

Tri-X at 200 is a timeless classic.

john_s said:

Tri-X at 200 is a timeless classic.

Click to expand...

For some, not all.

Couldn't it be Tri-X is not a classic, but good photographers and good photographs are?
If Tri-X has been by far the best sold film ever, then it's just statistical that the majority of important photographs during the last 70 years share the name Tri-X.
But what about the millions of photographs made with Tri-X, that look horrible and empty in surface and content? It seems their creators should have thought more about photography than about brand or EI.
About Tri-X I agree with Tom Abrahamsson: its design, toe and shoulder, give attention to the mid tones, and tend to produce negatives that can at least be well wet printed most of the times, and that's why Tri-X is so recommended to students. Tmax400 is a better film technically, but requires more precision to get the best out of it, and HP5+ is more versatile, but looks too soft to those who are not experts.
By the way, I like and use those three.

Juan Valdenebro said:

Couldn't it be Tri-X is not a classic, but good photographers and good photographs are?
If Tri-X has been by far the best sold film ever, then it's just statistical that the majority of important photographs during the last 70 years share the name Tri-X.
But what about the millions of photographs made with Tri-X, that look horrible and empty in surface and content? It seems their creators should have thought more about photography than about brand or EI.
About Tri-X I agree with Tom Abrahamsson: its design, toe and shoulder, give attention to the mid tones, and tend to produce negatives that can at least be well wet printed most of the times, and that's why Tri-X is so recommended to students. Tmax400 is a better film technically, but requires more precision to get the best out of it, and HP5+ is more versatile, but looks too soft to those who are not experts.
By the way, I like and use those three.

Click to expand...

Use a matrix metering without the sky or use a spot meter with or without the Zone System or use an incident meter all at box speed and all will be well.

Sirius Glass said:

Use a matrix metering without the sky or use a spot meter with or without the Zone System or use an incident meter all at box speed and all will be well.

Click to expand...

That's what I said, but...
All won't be well: only exposure.
Then you need development. Replenished Xtol, I've heard, takes the best development decisions every time for every type of scene contrast...
Oh, but then we find exposure and development are just technical skills: we need composition.
And then those three are less important than comunicating human condition.
Tri-X at 200 seems far now.

Juan Valdenebro said:

1) Metering and placement differ: apart from metering differently, some people place shadows' darkest details in zone 3 while others prefer zone 4: this means people actually talk about EI400 and EI200 but they may be talking about the same exposure exactly.

Click to expand...

Very well said. I am a bit puzzled when experienced folks say "I rate this film at X". This only makes sense if you're using a point-and-shoot camera with averaging metering without exposure compensation or lock. Otherwise, just meter each scene according to the result you want. My external meter is always set to ISO 100 anyway because I'm too lazy to switch. It doesn't mean that I "rate" all films at 100.

Juan Valdenebro said:

8) Scanning doesn't allow us to see the real/optimal use of photographic materials, because real film's tone disappears inside the hardware/software characteristics and protocols as soon as the all-new tone digital photograph is made by the scanner.

Click to expand...

And in this instance you just have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You obviously do not know what happens during scanning. Stop. Do not dress up your ignorance as "advice".

Steven Lee said:

Very well said. I am a bit puzzled when experienced folks say "I rate this film at X". This only makes sense if you're using a point-and-shoot camera with averaging metering without exposure compensation or lock. Otherwise, just meter each scene according to the result you want. My external meter is always set to ISO 100 anyway because I'm too lazy to switch. It doesn't mean that I "rate" all films at 100.



And in this instance you just have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You obviously do not know what happens during scanning. Stop. Do not dress up your ignorance as "advice".

Click to expand...

Hello Steven.
I have scanned professionally here and in Europe for more than 20 years, using drum scanners for slide film, color negative, black and white negative, and Scala, in all formats.
I think you're confused.
About me and about scanning.
What a scanner can do -to some degree- is helping us compare different films that have been scanned the very same way.
And what software can do is letting us transform the tone of a digital image.
But scanning doesn't replace wet printing's or real film's tone.
You're not ignorant, you just need to mix things in your mind to feel you're right.
Good night.

Juan Valdenebro said:

That's what I said, but...
All won't be well: only exposure.
Then you need development. Replenished Xtol, I've heard, takes the best development decisions every time for every type of scene contrast...
Oh, but then we find exposure and development are just technical skills: we need composition.
And then those three are less important than comunicating human condition.
Tri-X at 200 seems far now.

Click to expand...

I have used replenished XTOL for years

It's great to have you around, Sirius.
Have a good night.

Juan Valdenebro said:

It's great to have you around, Sirius.
Have a good night.

Click to expand...

Siriusly, yes.

I love Tri-X @200 and even @100 in Caffenol CL stand...

Here's to keeping it civil, people.

Is everyone even talking about the same Triassic-X? The 35mm and current 120 roll version (400 box speed) and the 320 speed sheet version are not just on different bases, but are different emulsions. About the only thing they share closely in common is grain the size of buckshot or howitzer shrapnel, depending on your specific developer. The characteristic curve even differs. One was the classic film of photojournalists, the other of contact printers.