Tri-X 400 or Tri-X 320 for 120?

[Ektagraphic]

Why would you chose one over the other? Why do they have both? Is one better than the other. I just oreded the 320 to give it a try...

Patrick

 

[Chazzy]

I use the 320 version in 120 in my folders because it is the only black and white emulsion currently available in 220. I will probably also start using it in sheet film.

 

[2F/2F]

They are different emulsions, though they are similar in having the unique Tri-X look. The 400 has more bite in the shadows and midtones, at the expense of subtlety in the higher tones. It is closer to HP5, though the spectral sensitivity and appearance of grain are noticeably different between the two. I would choose 320 for contrasty light, and 400 for flat light. In average light, I might choose either one. For pushing, I would choose the 320 most times, because it has more latitude and does not block up as easily.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Does the 320 have finer grain?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

What 2F has said.

The 320 has a depressed midtones curve, which gives snappy highlights and darker shadow, to the expense of midtones. In contrasty light (e.g. a winter scene) this has the advantage of preserving the shining aspect of whites.

The 400 has a more straight curve, which makes it useful as an all-purpose film, including pushing. It will handle mistakes more gracefully (underexposure, overdevelopment, etc).

If you want to see a quick demonstration, open up any image editor that uses curves, and compare the straight curve with one in which midtones are a little depressed (don't touch the endpoints). You will see your highlights glow nicely, but other tones will get darker.

If you were to use it for studio portrait, you would probably put skin tones on Zone VII (i.e. spot meter reading + 2 stops) instead of the usual Zone VI (reading + 1 stop), to be sure they don't look too dark.

I did the side-by-side comparison test once: I took pictures of snowbanks in which there were various degrees of dirt: clean white, greyish, brown, pitch sooty, etc. On the contact prints, I could notice the difference, but it is in the order of a 10-20% difference. A normal person would have found either print normal.

So the main reason to use 320 is when you know that extra edge will be useful. On the other hand, you won't ruin a photo taken in the so-called "normal" situation by using 320 instead of 400 if you expose and process correctly.

 

[2F/2F]

Let me add to my last sentence: I would use the 320 if pushing in contrasty light (e.g. stage show)....but I would use the 400 for pushing in flat light (e.g. flat day).

I purposefully overexpose 320 quite often, if I want to have more meat on the negative to help me with the print. The highlights can handle this easily on the 320....but not the 400 (which I have recently started using again, packaged as Arista Premium 400).

The 320 was my main 4x5 film for years...as was the 400 for 35mm.

 

[2F/2F]

Does the 320 have finer grain?

The grain is the least of the differences, IMO. Neither will have a lot.

As for Tri-X grain vs. HP5 grain, I find HP5 grain to be sharp, and Tri-X grain to be soft. I don't even get what I consider to be coarse grain when pushing Tri-X to 800 in 35mm format...though I do with HP5.

 

[Sirius Glass]

They are different emulsions, though they are similar in having the unique Tri-X look. The 400 has more bite in the shadows and midtones, at the expense of subtlety in the higher tones. It is closer to HP5, though the spectral sensitivity and appearance of grain are noticeably different between the two. I would choose 320 for contrasty light, and 400 for flat light. In average light, I might choose either one. For pushing, I would choose the 320 most times, because it has more latitude and does not block up as easily.

I have never used Tri-X 320. I think that I will tr it ...

I did the side-by-side comparison test once: I took pictures of snowbanks in which there were various degrees of dirt: clean white, greyish, brown, pitch sooty, etc. On the contact prints, I could notice the difference, but it is in the order of a 10-20% difference. A normal person would have found either print normal.

for snow.

Thanks to both of you.

Steve

 

[B&Wpositive]

I have to develop a roll of Tri-X 320. I've been trying to figure out what development time I need (in Ilfotec HC). The photos were taken in extremely contrasty light.

Do I want more or less developing time than recommended for Tri-X 400?

Can anyone help me?

 

[2F/2F]

I have to develop a roll of Tri-X 320. I've been trying to figure out what development time I need (in Ilfotec HC). The photos were taken in extremely contrasty light.

Do I want more or less developing time than recommended for Tri-X 400?

Can anyone help me?

Why not look at the manufacturer's recommended development times, and if for some reason you still have questions, start your own thread?

 

[MattKing]

I have to develop a roll of Tri-X 320. I've been trying to figure out what development time I need (in Ilfotec HC). The photos were taken in extremely contrasty light.

Do I want more or less developing time than recommended for Tri-X 400?

Can anyone help me?

Here is the Kodak pdf for both films:

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

The Ilford data for that developer includes Tri-X 400 but not 320, but the Kodak data will probably permit you to extrapolate.

Matt

 

[fschifano]

Think of Ilfotec HC as Ilford's equivalent to Kodak's HC-110. All indications are that they are more or less the same, just as D-76 and ID-11 are functionally equivalent. So if you can't find info for Tri-X 320 in Ilfotec HC, use the figures for HC-110.