Tri-X Film

[Chuck_P]

I would appreciate some thoughts on Tri-X 400 vs. Tri-X 320. Apart from the obvious speed difference, why do some of you use 400 and some of you use 320? Do you use one for one situation and one for another?

Thanks in advance.

Chuck

 

[jgjbowen]

AFAIK 35mm is only available as Tri-X 400 and Sheet film is only available as Tri-x 320. I don't know what speed the 120 size film is.

John

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

My recently purchased (Sept. 2006) 120 Tri-X rollfilm is 320

 

[jd callow]

My limited knowledge is that txp (320) has greater inherent contrast and puts most of it's tonal range in the mid to high end making it good for portraits.



TXP:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f002_0361ac.gif

Tri-x 400 pro:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f009_0493ac.gif

 

[SuzanneR]

They are pretty different films. Trix-400 comes in both 35mm and 120 format, but I don't think it's available as sheet film. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's a pretty versatile all purpose film.

Tri-x 320 (TXP) is, AFAIK, designed to be used in studio for portraits, as it gives great skin tones. It certainly can be used in natural light, but it's a little tricky to use when the light is high in contrast. It comes in 120, 220 formats, and in sheet film. Again, I may be wrong about the available formats.

 

[jd callow]

I have the 320 in 120 and 4x5 and the 400 in 4x5. The 400 is the old stuff and therefore is no indication of wether it is still availbel as such.

 

[Paul Sorensen]

The 400 is no longer available in sheets. The only size where both films are available is 120. Strangely, the 320 Tri-X in 120 is only available in propacks and the 400 speed is only in single rolls in 120. The whole complicated affair is explained here.

I have only used the 400 in 120 and 320 in 4X5 and I would not say that I have enough experience to know the difference, but I have always heard what Suzanne said.

 

[photographs42]

There is Tri-x (TX) and Tri-x Pro (TXP). TX is 400 and TXP is 320.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.jhtml

Jerome

 

[David Brown]

This is, and has been, one of the great unsolved photographic marketing mysteries. Let's see, the speed is different, the film base is different, the spectral response is different, filter factors are different, etc. The bottom line is that in spite of the very similar name, they are two different films.

Go figure.

 

[Karl K]

TX400 is thinner than TX320. The latter has an Estar base so that the negative can be retouched more easily and is less apt to be damaged during processing. I think I read once that the thicker base contributes to the lower speed.

 

[JLP]

The difference in format already covered well. I use both in 120 but wish it would be possible to approach Kodak to make the TX400 available in sheet film too, or again if it was made at sometime. It is a wonderful film for it's tonality.
The TXP320 is not bad either but my experience is that it has more muddy skin tones than the TX.


jan

 

[Rick Jones]

If you superimpose the curves for both films you would see that 320TX has a longer toe meaning that shadow densities will not be quite as well separated when compared with 400TX (i.e. less contrast). However, the two curves intersect at about Z6 (most skin tones) with the 320TX having a steeper slope at that point resulting in more separation. While both films can be used to make fine prints wherever used you should expect 400TX to give you benefits outdoors with respect to shadow detail. Flare is a factor in all outdoor photography and will further flatten the already longer toe of 320TX. But in the portrait studio where flare is not such a big issue and shadow detail is not usually so important 320TX can help with the reproduction of skin tones.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

The sheet film version of Tri-x, as well as other 4x5 and larger b/w emulsions Kodak has make over the years such as Ektapan have a film base that accepts retouching. This would be on the base side, not the emulsion side. The base side has a slight "tooth" to it. You can use retouching pencils. There are advantages to retouching on the base side.

 

[3Dfan]

Tri-x reviews in DR5:

http://www.dr5.com/tx.html
http://www.dr5.com/txp.html

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

If you superimpose the curves for both films you would see that 320TX has a longer toe meaning that shadow densities will not be quite as well separated when compared with 400TX (i.e. less contrast). However, the two curves intersect at about Z6 (most skin tones) with the 320TX having a steeper slope at that point resulting in more separation. While both films can be used to make fine prints wherever used you should expect 400TX to give you benefits outdoors with respect to shadow detail. Flare is a factor in all outdoor photography and will further flatten the already longer toe of 320TX. But in the portrait studio where flare is not such a big issue and shadow detail is not usually so important 320TX can help with the reproduction of skin tones.

What Rick is saying makes sense to me. I use Tri-x (320) in 8x10 and 4x5 formats. It has high seperation in the midtones and lower highlight values. The shadows do drop out quickly (something I like and use in my images) and what detail is there has little seperation.

320 Tri-X is a picky film in terms exposure and can be overdeveloped if you're not carefull. If you are looking for a bulletproof emulsion, something with lots of lattitude, I'd use something else. If these facts fit your vision, as it does mine, it can be a wonderful film. I have no experience with the 400 version, though it sound like a completely different film. Best. Shawn

 

[wclavey]

Just to make sure everyone is thoroughly confused about what the vendors list and what you can purchase, I purchased Tri-X in 120 just before Christmas. I went to the Adorama site and they had this product:

Kodak Tri-X Pan 400, TX 120 Black & White Negative Film ISO 400, 120 Size, Pack of 5

Interestingly enough, the picture associated with the item is the pro-pack of 320TXP (it is still listed this way). I purchased 2, expecting 2 pro-packs of 400TX, assuming that the picture was wrong but the description was correct.

What I received was 10 individual rolls of 400TX, so I got the right product, just not in the pro-pack, reinforcing what Paul Sorensen says.

 

[michtothemax]

Tx400 may be pushed to 1600 with very good results in 120, and is very useful when shot at 3200. Txp is not recomended for pushing. and has slightly finer grain than Tx when shot at 320.

Regards.

Mich

 

[aldevo]

As I understand it, the chief market for TXP was the production of negatives that would be reproduced for magazine publications. That process demanded that photographers favor highlight separation in their negatives to avoid muddy highlights in the end product and this probably explains the characteristic curve. They also tended to expose the stuff at box speed in the studio. Again, I think this was probably to emphasize highlight separation.

I've used this stuff in 120 and 4x5. Where 120 is concerned, I have also used 400TX. In my experience - which is outside of the studio - TXP is best shot at 200 or (gasp) 160 if the light is constrasty. By comparsion, I'd be shooting 400TX at 250. Both films were developed in PC-TEA 1:50.

Not a bad film, but I prefer 400TX and HP5+ in 120.