Tri-X + D76, alternatives

[dxphoto]

What other combination can archive the tri-x + d76 look? Foma? Forte? Kodak has been raising the price and I don't want to go digital or shoot less. I primarily use tri-x for street and some protraits.

Thanks.

 

[Ryuji]

Neopan 400 has very similar tonal characteristics to TX (tho with slightly finer grain) and produces beautiful images. I use them with modified DS-10.

 

[jim appleyard]

My guess would be Ilford's HP-5. No films are identical, but HP-5 is a good one. Yes, the cost of TX is rising, but you're paying for a good film and quality control to go with it.

If you're shooting 35mm, do you bulk load? If not, that can save you $. Good bulk loaders are very cheap on ebay. I picked one one up from a gentleman who lives two blocks from me. $4.00 and no shipping.

 

[BradS]

I faced a similar dilema about a year ago...rising costs of Tri-X...what to do? I looked at a few alternatives. Classic Pan 400 (aka fortepan 400), HP5+, ADOX CHM400 (aka HP5+). These are all good films in their own right but, none of them is Tri-X. To my eye, HP5+ has a look very distinct from Tri-X. It is a great film but, again it's not tri-x nor is it any cheaper really. Classic Pan 400 looks nothing like the new Tri-X but is much cheaper. It too is a nice film. It does take some getting used to for some reason. Ryuji mentiones Neopan 400...I suspect the same truth applies...It is a fantastic film but, it isn't Tri-X and it really is no cheaper.

In the end, I came back to Tri-X.

 

[Ryuji]

HP5 Plus has more straight-line shoulder than Tri-X and that's what gives rise to the different appearance. Neopan 400 has similar shoulder. Delta 400, too, has some shoulder not dissimilar to it.

I wouldn't care about the price of film. Considering the value of the time spent shooting and processing, small difference in film price is insignificant.

 

[BradS]

I wouldn't care about the price of film. Considering the value of the time spent shooting and processing, small difference in film price is insignificant.

Yes. This is pretty much the same conclusion I came to. Quality, reliability, availability and consistency of results. These things are all worth the little extra expense. And, as you rightly point out, the cost of film is nothing compared to the value of your own time spent shooting, processing, printing, etc...

 

[MikeSeb]

it's all been said....

Tri-X and D-76 are classic, timeless, and irreproducible.

HP5 is also nice, but different.

Try them both in Xtol or Mytol. Try these developers undiluted or diluted up to 1+2. I've switched to Xtol/Mytol as my developer of choice for nearly all B&W films.

Cost of film and developer is a pittance compared to your time and effort even if you value your time at next to nothing.

 

[Paul Howell]

I like Forma 400, I dont have a densitometry so I have not compared Forma 400 with my old Tri X negatives, but my subjective opinion is that Forma 400 looks more like Tri X from the 70s than current Tri X does. I would use Forma 400 if it was available locally. My current film combo is HP5 with Edwal 12. I tired Tri X in Edwal 12 but did not like it as much as HP5, if Edwal 12 goes away I would use Tri X with HC 110 or DDX.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I've gone through this as well.. I _love_ tri-x. I use Foma/Arista.edu 100 in 4x5 sheets and I think that this is pretty close to TXP (for me, atleast).
The Foma/Arista.edu 100 in 120 is sort of close, minus all of the quality control issues. I develop both with D76 1:1.

 

[John Bragg]

No need to cut corners with film. Better to economise in the developer. I found liquid dev concentrate gives better economy and consistent quality. HC-110 is cheaper by far and lasts a lot longer. J.B.

 

[Ryuji]

I wouldn't economize developers, either. I'd rather economize: stay healthy and save doctor's fee, don't buy too many pairs of shoes, don't buy too many cameras, don't drive whenever bicycle works better, don't buy drinks for women, etc. Films and developers are pennies.

 

[Bromo33333]

What other combination can archive the tri-x + d76 look? Foma? Forte? Kodak has been raising the price and I don't want to go digital or shoot less. I primarily use tri-x for street and some protraits.

Thanks.

Then by all means, stick with Tri-X. In the grand scheme of things, if you are used to a film, and get better results (i.e. more satisfying) with it, then don't switch. I am sure you can find some other way to afford it in other parts of your life.

I mean, do you want to mentally think "boy that would have looked better with Tri-X" every time you develop a roll? (Selection of film is more important than selection of camera, in my opinion)