Tri-X 400 vs T-MAX 400

[etn]

TMAX 400 is a designer grain film. 30 years ago when it was first released, the film amazed a lot of photographers including me. However, I prefer the look of Tri-X. It's probably just me because I'm used to older Tri-X. TMAX grain looks too smooth.

It's not just you I like TMAX but prefer Tri-X.

I like the way Tri X shows grain, particularly in the "lower mid tones", it creates a very dramatic effect.
Here an example on 35mm with yellow filter. In medium format the grain is more subtle and elegant.



Apart from that the film is quite high contrast and punchy:


(now you guys can guess where I spent my last vacation weekend )

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

It's not just you I like TMAX but prefer Tri-X.

I like the way Tri X shows grain, particularly in the "lower mid tones", it creates a very dramatic effect.
Here an example on 35mm with yellow filter. In medium format the grain is more subtle and elegant.
View attachment 232830
View attachment 232831

Apart from that the film is quite high contrast and punchy:
View attachment 232832

(now you guys can guess where I spent my last vacation weekend )

You put a finger on why I like Tri X over Tmax.

 

[MattKing]

Less blue sensitivity, I think you mean.

Thanks, you are correct, and I've fixed the original post.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

View attachment 232934 View attachment 232935 View attachment 232934 View attachment 232935

Here are two contact prints of 35mm done by a prolab. Not sure what developer, probably XTOL. The lef one is Tmax 400 and the right one is TriX 400. The right TriX seems lighter than flat scan I did of the film. Is the contact light because the print wasn't printed right or because of the negatives or developing?
View attachment 232763

So to clarify a little, I scanned the negatives as positives. Are there a difference in the processing between the Tmax and TRiX or just the way they printed the contact in my original post?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It looks like my negative were not processed the same. (I'm looking at the rebate area). The TriX are "lighter"?? Or are there other issues?

 

[Bill Burk]

@Alan Edward Klein, It does look like the Tri-X has a "little" more fog than the TMY-2.
I just developed some of each... I'll take a quick densitometer reading and let you know if I see similar difference.

 

[Bill Burk]

I think the difference in density in your results might be just different results from the same lab at different times.

No significant difference in my results, 35mm film developed in one tank for 13:30 in D-76 1:1.
TMY-2 and Tri-X 35mm had similar base+fog for me about 0.25.
In 120 I had less base+fog, this is normal because 35mm has a slight tint for anti-halation that 120 does not need because it has black paper backing.

Here's the readings.
120 TMY-2 : 0.18, 0.16
35mm TMY-2 : 0.22, 0.27
35mm Tri-X : 0.26, 0.25

 

[MattKing]

The rebate characters provide useful information, but they are not accurate indicators of comparative development.
There is no way to ensure that the pre-development film has the same exposure in that area, or has responded the same to that exposure - Tri-X and T-Max 400 are different emulsions, after all - or that there is the same latent image degradation (however small that may be) between the two films.
And of course, there is probably different base fog and contrast behavior.

 

[John51]

fwir, some labs use the same dev time for all b+w film. That might have happened here.

 

[Bill Burk]

I use the same times for TMY-2 and Tri-X and TMAX-100. I think Kodak did something to make these three films have similar development times.

My comment about Alan’s rebate area was the slight difference in base+fog, not the characters.

 

[Tim Gray]

I'm late to the party, but about 10 years ago I did a short test with Tri-X, TMY-2, and TMZ (the one before it was discontinued and resurrected). Same camera, same lens, same lighting, same scene. I shot a color checker as well. I also did scans and wet prints of the shots.

I found that TMZ is about as grainy as Tri-X, TMY-2 is significantly sharper than Tri-X, and TMZ is a good deal sharper than Tri-X. I personally think TMZ prints a lot nicer than it scans. Tri-X has a nice look and I used to shoot quite a lot of it, but I use TMY-2 more now.

The short write up is here. If you click on the pictures in the blog post, you'll get to the full resolution images.

 

[braxus]

To me seeing a couple of your shots, the Tri-X shots look brighter with more contrast. Funny how grain doesn't look smaller on the TMAX stuff, yet you can see the letters much easier with TMAX.

 

[radiant]

The short write up is here. If you click on the pictures in the blog post, you'll get to the full resolution images.

One thing that is visible from comparison is that red is darker on T-Max than on Tri-X.

 

[GLS]

Funny how grain doesn't look smaller on the TMAX stuff

That is very likely due to artifacts of the scanning process.

 

[macfred]

... The short write up is here. If you click on the pictures in the blog post, you'll get to the full resolution images.

'' ... The character of the grain stands out more in the wet prints. TX looks grainier all across the board compared to TMY ... ''

True! Scanning the negatives I can hardly see a difference in grain.

One thing that is visible from comparison is that red is darker on T-Max than on Tri-X.

Agreed!

 

[GLS]

With DSLR scanning I see a massive difference in the level of grain between Tri-X and TMY-2 (with the same developer).

 

[macfred]

With DSLR scanning I see a massive difference in the level of grain between Tri-X and TMY-2 (with the same developer).

May depend on resolution and sharpening (and post processing)?
And yes, there's a difference in grain but not so clearly pronounced as in a wet print (for my old eyes).

 

[GLS]

May depend on resolution and sharpening (and post processing)?

All of the above, but certain sharpening algorithms in particular can really excite grain aliasing. For my own comparisons all these factors are essentially fixed though. You are no doubt correct that wet prints show the grain less than a scan, but nonetheless the difference in grain between the two films is clear if you inspect them with a 10x or 20x loupe.

 

[takilmaboxer]

It has always bothered me that photographers refer to a film comparison by saying that one film "has more contrast" than another. Contrast is entirely a function of development and is not intrinsic to the film itself. In fact, before you can reasonably compare two films, you must adjust development so that they have the same contrast, or to use the technical term, Gamma. Fine grained films have more surface area per grain than faster films and so their contrast goes up faster with development time. But you can adjust development time so that film "A" has the same overall contrast as "B", even if you're comparing Pan F to TM400. Film manufacturers publish curves showing the relationship between development and gamma, so it's not a a hard thing to do to match contrast.
But then, if you're scanning the negatives, forget it. That introduces a whole new set of variables that you will have to spend inordinat amounts of time evaluating (and arguing about)

 

[john_s]

......Contrast is entirely a function of development and is not intrinsic to the film itself. In fact, before you can reasonably compare two films, you must adjust development so that they have the same contrast,....

Absolutely agree.

To be nit picking, there might be a few (very few) outlying situations where getting the contrast you seek is tricky and changing dev time not quite enough (ultra slow films, some kinds of developers maybe).

To quote the late Geoffrey Crawley in his review of 400 films in BJP a few years ago:

"So how does one go about comparing the properties of one film with another? Firstly it is essential that they are developed to the same contrast. Manufacturers give times in various developers which should give negatives of normal enlarging quality, as it is known. These are start points for the worker, intended to be adjusted in the light of experience with particular cameras, exposure techniques, and enlarger types.

A practical average contrast, using the Kodak method of assessing the contrast to which a film has been developed, is a Contrast Index (CI) of 0.58. Ilford has a slightly different method, though its G bar indices are close to CIs in value. It is only when films are processed to the same or a very near contrast, that true assessments of relative speed, grain and sharpness can be made."