TRI-X 400, 320 TXP, and Arista 400

John Irvine · Jan 10, 2009

I've seen statements that Arista 400 from Freestyle is TRI-X made in the US by Kodak. If that is the case, is it TRI-X 400 or 320 TXP? In addition, what is the difference between TRI-X 400 and 320 TXP, technically and practically?:confused:

chriscrawfordphoto · Jan 10, 2009

It is the 400. The 320 version is not available in 35mm.

jim appleyard · Jan 10, 2009

TXP 320 is a different film than TX400 (they really should have different names); they have different looks and the TXP 320 has a retouching surface. TXP320 is meant for studio use, but many folks use it for other uses.

SamWeiss · Jan 10, 2009

You need to be more specific. Just saying "Arista 400" refers not just to one film, but possibly four (or more?) different films from different makers.

fschifano · Jan 10, 2009

Arista Premium is rumored to be Tri-X. Arista.EDU Ultra is Fomapan.

John Irvine · Jan 11, 2009

OK. For 4X5 Tri-X, my only choice is ISO 320. For 35mm Tri-X, my only choice is ISO 400, whether from Kodak or Arista Premium. Then, for Tri-X 120 I have a choice of 320 or 400. What would lead me to choose one over the other. I use 120 in a roll film back on my field camera and in an elderly twin lens reflex.

Phillip P. Dimor · Jan 11, 2009

I was always under the impression that the 320 Tri-X was more suited for controlled lighting within studios. There's a pdf on the Kodak site somewhere, or there should be.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 11, 2009

Tri-X 320 vs 400

You can find Kodak's Tech Pub at:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

It contains the characteristic curves for both films in 120 that I've attached here. From this you can deduce that the 400 version has a straighter response across the grayscale than the 320. The 320 has more of a curve with less separation in both shadow and highlight detail.

If you shoot the 320 slightly overexposed, and use a compensating developer, like Rodinal or Pyrocat, you can get similar results to the 400.

I hope that helps.

- Thomas

Anscojohn · Jan 11, 2009

John Irvine said:
OK. For 4X5 Tri-X, my only choice is ISO 320. For 35mm Tri-X, my only choice is ISO 400, whether from Kodak or Arista Premium. Then, for Tri-X 120 I have a choice of 320 or 400. What would lead me to choose one over the other. I use 120 in a roll film back on my field camera and in an elderly twin lens reflex.

*****
My understanding is that TXP has a different curve, with a longer toe than TX.

fschifano · Jan 11, 2009

Yes, that's true. Works well in low flare situations where the lighting can be carefully controlled. But don't let that stop you from trying it outdoors. When I bought my Graphic View 4x5, the seller included about 75 sheets of Tri-X 320 with it. It was the only film I had for the camera when it arrived and naturally, I couldn't wait to try it out. It worked well, very well in fact.

Phillip P. Dimor · Jan 11, 2009

I agree, it's still good outdoors. I went through a box or two and I recall shooting it all outdoors or with available light.

David A. Goldfarb · Jan 12, 2009

You can use TXP outdoors, but you've got to be a bit more careful to give sufficient exposure to get the shadows off the toe of the film curve (i.e., to get good shadow separation), and to control development, particularly when you've got very contrasty lighting, or the highlights will be difficult to print. I use it all the time.

John Irvine · Jan 12, 2009

Much to think about. It's too cold to go out and take pictures so I guess I'll sit in front of the fire and think.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 12, 2009

John, if I were you I'd buy a roll of each and shoot an identical scene with both rolls, develop them, and see if there is enough between them, in practical matters and for your purposes, to worry about.

The 320 isn't as bad as you might think. It's great film, and you'll enjoy both if you learn how to use them to your liking.

Don't think. Do! And take notes.

- Thomas

K-G · Jan 12, 2009

Another important thing is that the TXP 320 is, as far as I know, the only
black and white film available in 220 size. I have used it during the last
30 years for general purpose, and as long as you have a good lighting situation it gives excelent results. I normaly develop it with D-76 or
HC-110 and they both work fine. If you develop in tanks with film spirals ( such as Paterson ) , be carefull so the spirals are bone dry when you load the film. The 220 film is more sensitive to jaming when you load it as it is
twice the length of a 120-film. With a 220-back for , in my case , the Hasselblad it is a great feeling to be able to shoot a rapid sequence of
24 2 1/4 square frames without having to reload.
Give it a try. It is worth it !
Godd Luck !

Karl-Gustaf

viridari · Jan 29, 2009

Phillip P. Dimor said:
I was always under the impression that the 320 Tri-X was more suited for controlled lighting within studios. There's a pdf on the Kodak site somewhere, or there should be.

I really like using it outdoors when it is a bit overcast out.

TRI-X 400, 320 TXP, and Arista 400

John Irvine

chriscrawfordphoto

jim appleyard

SamWeiss

fschifano

John Irvine

Phillip P. Dimor

Thomas Bertilsson

Attachments

Anscojohn

fschifano

Phillip P. Dimor

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

John Irvine

Thomas Bertilsson

K-G

viridari

TRI-X 400, 320 TXP, and Arista 400

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency