Tri-X: Old vs. New?

[yeknom02]

I recently read that Kodak re-engineered their classic Tri-X 400 to have less silver content. (No year was given.) The article said that the older Tri-X had a classic "look" to it that has since been lost in the new formula, which is more lifeless.

Does anyone know of any images that compare the two versions of the film?

 

[fschifano]

You know, it's a long time ago already since Kodak re-formulated Tri-X. If you happen to come across any unused, old version Tri-X and try to compare it against fresh stock, you'll see some differences. Unfortunately, most of the difference that you'll notice will be because the older stuff is very outdated and has undoubtedly developed some age fog. The stories you hear about them using less silver for the new version are mostly bogus I think, and it doesn't matter one bit. The reformulated Tri-X behaves the same way the old one did. If anything, grain is a little less obvious, which to me is a good thing. It still looks, acts, and feels like Tri-X should. Spectral sensitivity and curve shape are essentially unchanged.

 

[Tony Egan]

I agree with Frank. The "new" Tri-X is a fabulous film. Drop this hoary old nostalgia trip and make some great photos with today's great products. If only the old Tri-X was available I too could be a HCB, Winogrand, Elliott Erwitt etc. Unfortunately life doesn't work that way I can show you some crappy photos taken with both films. It's not the film that makes the critical difference to the "life-ness" of the photo. What difference would seeing a digital reproduction comparison on a computer screen make to your photographic life? What's your "look" going to be?!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Photographic magic comes from within, regardless of your materials. Any difference between new and old Tri-X is far overshadowed by your own creativity, imagination, and how you use your materials.

.

 

[dpurdy]

I just did a photo trip to Mexico with a mixed bag of film, Fuji 400, Tmax 400 and Tri-X. I was never a TriX user in the past 30 years but I love the way the tri-x is printing. I like it better than the other 2 films I took.

 

[yeknom02]

I'd still like to see some comparisons to see what people are even talking about. I agree that there's no use in pining for the past. I shot some photos in Baltimore on my first rolls of Tri-X and they're looking just fine. I kinda wish they had a bit more grain to them, but there might be a different means of developing that could help me there. Whether I'll end up preferring it to Ilford HP5+ remains to be seen.

I'm starting to like these forums. There's a subtle positivity on them I'm beginning to notice.

 

[MFP]

I agree with Frank. The "new" Tri-X is a fabulous film. Drop this hoary old nostalgia trip and make some great photos with today's great products. If only the old Tri-X was available I too could be a HCB, Winogrand, Elliott Erwitt etc. Unfortunately life doesn't work that way I can show you some crappy photos taken with both films. It's not the film that makes the critical difference to the "life-ness" of the photo. What difference would seeing a digital reproduction comparison on a computer screen make to your photographic life? What's your "look" going to be?!

God...honestly? Stop making posts like this.

When I asked one of my professors what a good brand of graphite pencils for sketching are, he told me: "PITT pencils are good". (True story)

Why, exactly, do you feel the need to give the OP your inspirational speech about photography when he started a thread comparing the characteristics of a new version of a film to a new one? I find it so annoying that in a majority of technical threads on APUG, someone always has to childishly point out the fact that "choice of film doesn't make a photograph good" and that "there have been good photos taken on [film A] and bad ones taken on [film B]." My professor suggested a brand of pencils because he knew I probably wasn't relying on the quality of pencil to make my drawing. It's the same for photography, I want the right film with the right look so that I can make my photos the way I want them. It's reassuring, I compose without worry that the use of the wrong film might make the photo overly soft in tone or maybe too harsh in tone and distract the viewer. Please, don't be a smart alec. Those kinds of post just give the OP a hard time and seriously discourage me (and I have to imagine others) from ever expecting to get a straight answer on an APUG thread.

 

[2F/2F]

Why worry about 35mm Tri-X when there is Arista Premium 400?

 

[brian steinberger]

MPF, no one is going to be able to tell you which film to use to get the "look" you want. We have no idea what look you want, and even if you told us in depth you would still get tons of opinions. If there's one thing I've learned from APUG over the years it's that you can come here for suggestions on many topics, but in the end YOU have to do the work, experimenting, trial and error all yourself to find what works for you.

 

[MFP]

@ brian steinberger: I'm not asking someone to give me that answer at all. Obviously I'm going to have to find it for myself. I've accepted that, that's why I'm on forums. What I'm complaining about is when people have to repeat the same Photography 101 lessons in answer to questions that you could actually answer, even if they are overly technical and are not focusing on the "art" part of photography. So I'm not asking anyone to tell me what film I will like, I'm asking them to not respond to a legitimate question about the characteristics of old vs. new tri-x with pedantic comments about how a good film doesn't make a good image or how using the same film as HCB won't make you as good as him and blah blah blah. It's annoying, and it prevents us from being able to find substantive answers about technical questions. If I can't get substantive answers to technical questions, then how exactly do I even go beyond the "Green Box Mode" on my point-n-shoot?

 

[TSSPro]

Not being a long-time Tri-X user, I wonder if anyone knows the actual changes that occurred with the making of the film? Changes in the base, emulsion, etc. Just a point of curiosity on my part.

 

[brian steinberger]

@ brian steinberger: I'm not asking someone to give me that answer at all. Obviously I'm going to have to find it for myself. I've accepted that, that's why I'm on forums. What I'm complaining about is when people have to repeat the same Photography 101 lessons in answer to questions that you could actually answer, even if they are overly technical and are not focusing on the "art" part of photography. So I'm not asking anyone to tell me what film I will like, I'm asking them to not respond to a legitimate question about the characteristics of old vs. new tri-x with pedantic comments about how a good film doesn't make a good image or how using the same film as HCB won't make you as good as him and blah blah blah. It's annoying, and it prevents us from being able to find substantive answers about technical questions. If I can't get substantive answers to technical questions, then how exactly do I even go beyond the "Green Box Mode" on my point-n-shoot?

I understand better now what you're saying. Thanks

 

[marcmarc]

While I love the fact that I can buy Tri-X at a discount (thank you Freestyle for Arista Premium 400) I have to admit I was disappointed with it at first. I too was looking for that old school grainy look but didn't find it with todays Tri-X. Whatever changes Kodak has made to Tri-X over the years was done for one reason: Profit. These days Kodak has to do whatever it can to stay afloat so if that means changing classic emulsions to suit the tastes for the widest possible focus group, then that's what they are going to do. In the meantime, I'll have to shoot a test roll and try Rodinal for a developer to punch up the grain a bit. I'm using HC-110 at 1+50 and it's just not grainy enough

 

[rphenning]

everything i've looked at from tri-x pushed a few stops + d76 1:1 looks pretty grainy to me. I can't wait to try it out.

 

[rphenning]

or like marcmac said, ill just switch it up to rodinal and agitate a lot more when i fix.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Not being a long-time Tri-X user, I wonder if anyone knows the actual changes that occurred with the making of the film? Changes in the base, emulsion, etc. Just a point of curiosity on my part.

Several years ago, Kodak built a new film-coating plant for thier black and white films. The purpose was to have a factory with the latest technology for producing films in the smaller volumes that todays market requires. In other words, the old factory's machinery required making batches that were too big for them to sell before the film went bad since most people have gone digital. So, they built a plant to make film in small quantities for us artists who still like film, while allowing them to stay profitable. This is a good thing! They stated at the time that minor changes to the emulsions were needed to make them on the new machinery while keeping the old tonal qualities. The main change you see is the new ones require different developing times than the old versions. Most of Kodak's BW films had their recommended times shortened a little bit.

 

[Tony Egan]

God...honestly? Stop making posts like this.
[/quote

My post was meant to be taken in good humour. So I apologise if it offended you or the OP but I think you took it and yourself a bit too seriously. It elicited the underlying reason for the question - would like more grain - which is a good question which got some good suggestions which I hope the OP thought was helpful.

 

[MFP]

from what I've seen, Tri-x pushed to 800 or 1600 in diafine looks somewhat like old tri-x in d76, with the grain and the contrast being pretty much what suits my taste. unlike old tri-x, though, the new film seems to have a larger latitude, as more values seem to want to be rendered as a middle gray.

 

[brianmquinn]

When Kodak switched to the new coating equipment a few years ago there were several articles published by good photographers. At that time there were still fresh rolls of the old version of Tri-X and Fresh rolls of the new version. In side by side tests the only real difference was that the new version had less grain then the old version.

P.S. "Silver Rich" is B.S. The amount of Silver has nothing to do with the quality of the image. There are high Silver products that are much inferior to the modern low silver films. Think about Lucky Film VS TMY-2.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I think that Tri-X 400, Especially when shot in a classic 35mm camera still has a very classic look. I am begining to like it more than ever before. Tri-X is my favorite film and is now practically all I shoot. When I need to have a finer grain image that shooting 35mm, I jump to 120 or 4x5. Tri-X is amazing.

 

[yeknom02]

It elicited the underlying reason for the question - would like more grain - which is a good question which got some good suggestions which I hope the OP thought was helpful.

Actually, my post didn't make any assumptions. If the old film was grainier, or less grainy, or had more/less "latitude," it doesn't matter... I'm merely looking for what the differences are, preferably with a visual aid by example. A technical (I.e., chemical) reason for these differences is also helpful, as are any tricks to get new Tri-x to look like the old. (Apparently more fixer agitation? I never new that trick.)

It might also help if I explain that I'm an engineer (i.e., naturally curious) and pretty new to b&w photography (I started 3 or so months ago operating only on info I've been able to get via Internet.)

Thanks all,
-dan

 

[fschifano]

Fixer agitation? That's a new one on me. Fixing goes to completion. The idea is to remove ALL developed silver from the emulsion and nothing more. I cannot see how altering agitation techniques can change the appearance of grain since the fixer does not act on the image bearing silver. It is possible to over-fix a piece of film to the point where some of the image bearing silver is removed, but that takes quite a bit of doing to accomplish, and is not without unwanted side effects.

There are developers than ameliorate the appearance of grain, and there are developers that do not. More frequent agitation during development will promote faster development (to a point) which builds more contrast and enhances the appearance of grain, while less frequent agitation retards the development process and can diminish the appearance of grain. Outside that small window of latitude, there is little that can be done to change the inherent grain qualities of a given film.

 

[Tony Egan]

It might also help if I explain that I'm an engineer (i.e., naturally curious) and pretty new to b&w photography (I started 3 or so months ago operating only on info I've been able to get via Internet.)

Thanks all,
-dan

In that case, look out for a member that goes by the name PE (ex-Kodak engineer). In fact he probably won't mind if you send him a PM on the subject. I was just scanning some film so I thought for the hell of it I would scan some 30-year old tri-x and compare it with something I did last month. The most obvious difference is the film base on new tri-x has a blueish/purpleish colour whereas the old tri-x was much clearer. (These were scanned in colour, notwithstanding all the logic that goes into the scanning algorithms)

On the enlarged sections it's difficult to see any profound difference in grain. A more rigorous test under a microscope needed for that I would think.

Again, discounting all the variables such as lighting conditions, lens, developer etc etc. I think the tonal transition on new tri-x is smoother and some might suggest a bit more "plasticy"? Perhaps this is what people are getting at when they suggest old tri-x is more "lifelike"/gritty? I think new tri-x also tames the highlights better, although I was more of an Ilford FP4 user 30 years ago and switched mainly to tri-x about 10 years ago.

Anyway, the world needs both artists and engineers and there is more than a lifetime's analysis ahead of you if your interest is in photography! But beware of myths. I think "old tri-x magic" is one of the myths!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ah.. Wonderful comparison, Tony! Nothing like real world evidence of actually using them side by side and comparing them. It goes into proving that your results depend a lot more on how you use your materials than what materials you use as far as 'differences' go.

 

[yeknom02]

Tony,

Exactly the helpful evidence I was looking for! I agree there's probably very little visible difference, but then again, I've been doing black and white for a few months. I still have to wrap my head around "tonality," "latitude," "shadow detail" etc., etc. There should be a book that illustrates such concepts side by side.

Great, helpful info. Thanks again.

-Dan