Tri-x 400 vs. 320 / portraiture

[noseoil]

I've had to give up on Efke 25 for portraits and artificial lighting, for the moment. A lobster for a model after a session would be a bit much with the right amount of light for this film (besides, I'm not entirely sure the wiring in our older neighborhood would stand up to the current draw from that much light, global warming being what it is).

After doing a bit of research here in apug, it seems a good choice for artificial light is tri-x. It has the speed necessary, a nice tonal scale and gives a look which can be changed with development. Well enough and fine with me. Now things get more interesting. I've ordered some of the 400 from Freestyle and will be using it it this weekend for the first time. I have PMK or Pyrocat available for a developer, but I tend to lean a bit more toward the PMK, as I like the smooth tonality and shadow values aren't as much of a concern for my intended shots in the next session. This takes care of a developer, for now.

My question is simply, what can I expect when I jump up to the 320 for use with a 4x5? Once I have the look I want with 120 and the TX400, I want to go into 4x5 and stay with similar lighting. Since the shoulder is present with 320 and not with 400, what adjustments will be necessary in working with the 4x5 film (lighting, development, printing)? Am I being too anal (as usual) in thinking about this difference as something which will make a significant change in the finished print? Thanks in advance. tim

 

[Neal]

Dear noseoil,

Use the 400 for something else and order some 320 in 120 size. The published curves aren't identical (120 vs. Sheets) but closer than the 400. Heck, while you're being "anal" (I would prefer "concientious" ;>) ), just do your testing with sheet film.

Neal Wydra

 

[aldevo]

I agree 100% with Neal. 5 roll Pro Packs are available for TXP in 120.

400TX and TXP (ISO 320) are quite different films. TXP has a considerably longer toe leading to somewhat diminished shadow separation, darker midtones and more aggressive highlight separation (TXP's H&D curve is markedly upswept) when you expose the film at or around its box speed.

In the field with contrasty light, I've found that TXP needs to be exposed around EI 125 to get the shadow separation I might find with 400TX at EI 200. And that leaves me with very little latitude to develop the film.

That may be far less of a concern in the studio but you might also want to take a look at Ilford HP5+.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

If you use strobes in the studio, you could continue to use Efke 25, and provide comfort for your models.

Traditionally the ISO320 Tri-x and the ISO400 Tri-x have another difference than what is mentioned in the above posts. The ISO-320 has a retouching surface on the base side. Not so important now-a-days, but at one time this was a selling feature, in the days when people did extensive retouching directly on the large negative.

 

[noseoil]

At this point, I'm using what I have available (couple of 650 watt hot lights) for directed lighting. These require a set of scrims, flags and other items to shape the light. Since I already have the order placed with freestyle, I'm planning on using what is available to me now (Tri-x 400 and hot lights). It may be that I will need to upgrade to strobes, in which case I can go back to efke 25, but for now I'm willing to work with this method to refine my abilities and get the "look" I want from this setup. Will post an image when I get one which works in this direction. tim

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I will surely get my butt shot off here for what I am about to write.

I use tons of Tri-X in both flavors -- TX400 in 120 (always) and TXP in sheets. All the photos in my APUG gallery are on Tri-X.

In studio, shooting under hotlights, and exposing them as I do (at half their rated speeds) I don't see a difference between them.

I've not shot TXP enough outdoors to form a conclusion about that.

Everybody talks about how much different these two films are. Periodically, I ask someone to talk about how they differ in the real world. All I've ever gotten back is references to shoulder/toe charts.

I stick with TX400 in roll film because I know it and it works for me.

Sanders

 

[noseoil]

Sanders and all, thanks for the comments on this one. I'll be shooting this evening with the 400TX and dunking in PMK for this first batch.

Sanders, I appreciate your input about the two films and their similarities. I'm sure a densitometer would show the differences, but for a controlled lighting setup, I'm hoping that I can dial in what I need and work with the light and development to make things work. Will have to see what actually shows up on the film, then check back in with an image. Do you do anything different with development between these two films, or is a "normal" batch what you tend to use for both, unless something changes or lighting is different? Thanks again, tim

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Tim, I've proccessed them according to different formulas, that I've changed over time. For TXP sheets, I expose at EI 160; TX400 rolls I expose at EI 200; and with both I err always on the side of overexposure when metering.

I used to process TXP sheets in a 1:50 Rodinal solution (68F) for 12-13 minutes. I've found that this does not really give me enough contrast for some graded papers, so I recently upped my solution to 1:25 and dropped a minute from my times and got denser highlights as a result.

With the TX400 rolls, I've mostly used HC-110. I use an offbeat recipe, 5/8 oz HC-110 syrup in 900ml water (68F), for 5 1/2 minutes. To build slightly more density, I've upped that to 6 minutes. The difference is small but appreciable.

That's not much help, I know, since you're using PMK. When in doubt, I'm a slave to the Massive Dev chart.

Sanders

 

[aldevo]

I will surely get my butt shot off here for what I am about to write.

I use tons of Tri-X in both flavors -- TX400 in 120 (always) and TXP in sheets. All the photos in my APUG gallery are on Tri-X.

In studio, shooting under hotlights, and exposing them as I do (at half their rated speeds) I don't see a difference between them.

I've not shot TXP enough outdoors to form a conclusion about that.

Everybody talks about how much different these two films are. Periodically, I ask someone to talk about how they differ in the real world. All I've ever gotten back is references to shoulder/toe charts.

I stick with TX400 in roll film because I know it and it works for me.

Sanders

Simply put, if you want TXP to resemble 400TX (in contrasty light, at least) - you add 2/3s stop to the exposure.