Can someone comment or show samples of the newest versions of Tri-X 400 and TMax 400? I have used Tri-X 400 last year, but Id like to see comparisons from someone who has used both of these recently. I haven't used TMAX 400 since they revised it a few years ago. And someone said that Tri-X now incorporates some T-grains in it now. I'm wondering about the look of the TMAX film now. Im wondering about tonality and sharpness. I already know the grains of the TMAX film are smaller.
You'd probably be best sticking the Tri-X. It's not as sharp, and doesn't have as nice of mid tones, but it does have more contrast, which seems to be what you're after.The varying skin tones with Caucasians looking darker in tone and that glow from highlight to darker in skin, is one thing I'm after. My Avatar is an example of that. It was shot on Tri-X back in 2005, but I know the film has changed since then. I see great skin tone shots on TMAX 400, so I wonder if it might give more of that effect then Tri-X. Plus to have a sharper finer grained film for some things would be a bonus. I shot a pic of my mom last year on Tri-X, and though it was indoors, it looked flat. Grainy as heck too. Part of that may have come from not developing it right away, but I send my film to a lab to process and print/scan. I don't have the desire to do it myself.
This webpage shows some good sample of skin tones off TMAX 400:
https://mrleica.com/tag/tmax-400-vs-hp5/
Tmax 400 is a superior film, its spectral sensitivity is perfect.
TMY-II is much finer grained and sharper than TX, but has a significantly different curve shape - essentially a short toe and a long straight line. TX has the classic roll-off in the highlights & much crunchier grain - the specific grain make-up doesn't matter as much as the overall design philosophy & sensitisation choices etc of the film design.
There was some speculation about T-grain being in Tri-X now, but Bob Shanebrook's book allegedly put those speculations to rest.
What benefits perfect spectral sensitivity brings to the game / how perfect/non-perfect sensitivity differs?
I think T-Max 400 is too contrasty for my taste. I prefer Tri-X of these two. The grain is pleasant on Tri-X and without grain the photos start to look like digital captures. I think tasty amount of grain is essential in film B&W photography. Not too much but avoiding grain is a bit strange target.
This is what I have found myself, the toe is too short for my taste and makes the photos look too contrasty.
What benefits perfect spectral sensitivity brings to the game / how perfect/non-perfect sensitivity differs?
I think T-Max 400 is too contrasty for my taste. I prefer Tri-X of these two. The grain is pleasant on Tri-X and without grain the photos start to look like digital captures. I think tasty amount of grain is essential in film B&W photography. Not too much but avoiding grain is a bit strange target.
This is what I have found myself, the toe is too short for my taste and makes the photos look too contrasty.
The following is from Steve Anchell's Darkroom Cookbook (4th edition)
"Tri-X is now a semi-flat grain film with colour-dye sensitisers"
Some moldy old bits of misinformation tend to creep into these discussions. The early version of TMX100 did have some excess red sensitivity. The current versions of both speeds are especially well balanced, a fact which analytic tests through various strong filters prove, but lie well beyond the present discussion. Otherwise, I'm not going to get entangled with refuting certain blanket statements which are pure nonsense. I shoot both the TMax films in formats all the way from 35mm to 8x10, and use them for technical lab applications as well. I am highly familiar with many other films too. Take your pick. But the majority of complaints are really due to a lack of experience along with incorrect exposure and processing.
. It was shot on Tri-X back in 2005, but I know the film has changed since then.
OP but anyone really who has the information. I hadn't realised that there have been changes since 2005. What were they?
Thanks
pentaxuser
Truth, same with Acros.The spectral sensitivity I appreciate is that you can see clouds in the sky without a yellow filter. Pretty simple to see.
NB23 wrote about blemishes. Tri-X is more red sensitive than TMAX-400.
If anything, pimples would be diminished on Tri-X because they are red, and a red sensitive film would make them brighter, closer to the surrounding skin.
Wold this be another reason to prefer Tri-X for portraiture?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?