Tri-X Pan roll film turns 70

[Milpool]

I was reminded in John Sexton's latest newsletter yesterday that Tri-X Pan was first released in roll formats in November, 1954. It seems the current TX remains Kodak's best selling B&W film.

I figured I'd pass this along for anyone interested.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I shot a few rolls of Tri-X soon after I got my first SLR back in the early 1970s, but for some reason, decided I didn't like it. Later, I switched to slides and never shot another roll of Tri-X until this fall when I enrolled in a medium format photography class. I just put my seventh or eighth roll of Tri-X in the Mamiya TLR which I am using for class. I like it a lot better now in 120 than I did then in 135.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I shot Tri-X in 35 mm a fair amount in the 1970s. Tried to get on with the school yearbook one year, they gave me a bulk loaded roll of Tri-X, and out of 39 frames I got on the roll, they used five in the yearbook -- and then didn't make me a yearbook photographer...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Not 35mm, but I revisited 120 Tri-X a few months ago, to remember why I dumbed it years ago, in favour of HP5. Comparing it to a roll of HP5, I was very surprised at how similar they looked. I guess Kodak changed some of the characteristics over the years. I remember it being grittier back then, with less shadow detail.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ilford's equivalent to Tri-X was Hypersensitive Pan, released as plates in 1931, and roll film in 1933, HP2 plates in 1937, an roll film in 1939, the same year as Tri-X sheet film. HP3 plates were introduced in 1942 and roll film in 1943, it was used by the RAF as an aerial & cine film.

It's likely that a key sensitiser for early Tri-X came from Germany and was unavailable after the outbreak of WWII. It appears that all remaining Eastman Kodak Tri-X sheet film went to the US Army.

Ian

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It seems that Tri-X came out in sheet film in 1940. Then in 1954 as 135 and 120.

Some history:
Kodak Tri-X was initially introduced in 1940 as a sheet film. It had been preceded by Panatomic-X in 1938. That first “X” film was quickly followed by Plus-X, Super-X and Super-XX. The following year, 1939, saw the release of Ortho-X and then the world of photography entered a new era with the release of Tri-X in 1940. At the time of Tri-X’s initial release it was one of the fastest films Kodak offered. It was rated at ASA 200 in daylight (though we have read this “lower” speed was due more to how film speed ratings were determined as opposed to the film being that much slower than its modern counterpart). It took nearly 15 years until Tri-X was made available in 35mm and 120 formats. Its introduction to these two formats in 1954 is commonly cited as the official birthday of Tri-X. At this point in history though, whether you look at Tri-x as being 80 years old or merely 65 years old makes little difference. Tri-X has been around an absurdly long time as a photographic emulsion and it is kind of mind-boggling that all these decades later you can use the same film that has photographed movie stars, wars, presidents, World Series, and everything in between. Henri Cartier-Bresson switched to Tri-X in the 1950s. Robert Frank captured America on Tri-X. Garry Winogrand and Bruce Gilden prowled the streets of New York with cameras loaded with Tri-X. Mary Ellen Mark used Tri-X for just about every photo she made in her storied career. Sebastião Salgado caught the heart-wrenching scenes of the famine in Ethiopia on Tri-X while Elliott Erwitt used Tri-X to shine a wry light on the world. Even Vivian Maier, operating as an unknown photographer during her life worked largely with Tri-X. In short, unless you have been living in a cave, you have seen a photo made on Tri-X and likely used it yourself.

Film Friday featuring of Kodak Tri-X — The Codex

One of Kodak's most famous emulsions ever gets the Blue Moon Camera Film Friday treatment.

bluemooncameracodex.com

 

[Donald Qualls]

all these decades later you can use the same film that has photographed movie stars, wars, presidents, World Series, and everything in between.

But it's not the same film. Modern Tri-X (even discounting that there were two Tri-X films for decades, the 400, sold in 35 mm, 120/620, and sheet sizes, and 320, sold in medium and large format only) has much finer grain than the Tri-X I had access to in the 1970s. This is in large part because Kodak reformulated TX when formate doping technology allowed literally doubling the speed of a given size of halide crystals, which was applied to make grain smaller more than to make film faster. The closest film you can buy now to 1970s Tri-X is Double-X Negative cine film, 5322 in 35 mm and other numbers in smaller film (and 120 from Cinestill, who apparently have the resources to order custom cuts and such from Kodak). Shoot Double-X at EI 400, push enough to match that EI, and you've got a film that's remarkably close to old TX -- closer than what's now sold as 400TX.

 

[GregY]

Although i love Ilford Fp4, i've always peferred Tri-X to HP5. Lately i've used TMY2 for its smoother look in smaller formats. Last week for a trip to Texas i indiscriminately grabbed some 35mm from my fridge. This image reminded me why & how much i like Tri-X.
I've never had shadow detail issues with it.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

The 1970s Tri-X was grittier than the present film, but on typical web display, you barely see any difference:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2024/05/winter-stopover-in-salzburg-from.html?m=1

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've never had shadow detail issues with it.

If you meter sensibly and develop right, you won't.

 

[cmacd123]

I recall that "tri-X profesional" sold in 5 roll packs in 120was a 320ASA version, while regualr 120 Tri-X was sold at 400ASA and in Single roll packs.

I suspect that the Current TX400 is a complete redesign, needed t make it posible to coat at Building 38.

also back in the day, TRI-X was also made at Kodak Limited, and Kodak Pathe. Both were slightly different. the Canadian Version may have been a touch different as well. I recall a quote from one Famous Photographer (can't recall who) who said they he preferred the French version of Tri-X hands down.

 

[Paul Howell]

I started shooting Trix in the 60s. Our college lab supervisor hated Kodak, not their products but their business practices. I never did get what I thought was a straight answerer as to his reasoning. The only Kodak product he let us use without tossing a fit was Trix, said there was not a fast film that was as good at Trix. 90% of the film I shot was Trix until Tmax 400.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I recall that "tri-X profesional" sold in 5 roll packs in 120was a 320ASA version, while regualr 120 Tri-X was sold at 400ASA and in Single roll packs.

I suspect that the Current TX400 is a complete redesign, needed t make it posible to coat at Building 38.

also back in the day, TRI-X was also made at Kodak Limited, and Kodak Pathe. Both were slightly different. the Canadian Version may have been a touch different as well. I recall a quote from one Famous Photographer (can't recall who) who said they he preferred the French version of Tri-X hands down.

I doubt that the final product is very much different at all. I shot some recently, and it behaved just like it always has.

 

[braxus]

Tri-X is one of my favorite B&W films. My Avatar shown here (of a friend coworker back when) was shot on early 2000s Tri-X. Granted I liked the previous generation Tri-X more than the current version, the new stuff is still good. Its grit in 35mm is part of its charm. Call it character if you will. Artistic. I dont shoot much 400 speed films usually. I did try HP5+ and found I liked that better shot at 800 ISO and pushed developed. But pushed HP5+ still has a darker rendition in tones compared to Tri-X. I usually shoot Tri-X with people shots, but have used it on location for street shots as well. I prefer Plus X outdoors really. Panatomic X as well.

 

[GregY]

Well isn't this place all business?......
Happy 70th Birthday Kodak Tri-X

 

[gordrob]

And don't forget the TRI-X film packs from the 60s & 70s. Great way to shoot 4x5 and 2x3.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I too have used Kodak Tri-X 400 in 135 and 120 since the 1960's. It and Rollei IR 400 film are my go to black & white films.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Happy 70th!! The new Tri-X may be finer grain than the older version, but overall looks about the same. I learned this in 2014 after having not used Tri-X for 2+ decades.

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2014/12/burmese-days-9-yangon-central-station.html

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

But it's not the same film. Modern Tri-X (even discounting that there were two Tri-X films for decades, the 400, sold in 35 mm, 120/620, and sheet sizes, and 320, sold in medium and large format only) has much finer grain than the Tri-X I had access to in the 1970s. This is in large part because Kodak reformulated TX when formate doping technology allowed literally doubling the speed of a given size of halide crystals, which was applied to make grain smaller more than to make film faster. The closest film you can buy now to 1970s Tri-X is Double-X Negative cine film, 5322 in 35 mm and other numbers in smaller film (and 120 from Cinestill, who apparently have the resources to order custom cuts and such from Kodak). Shoot Double-X at EI 400, push enough to match that EI, and you've got a film that's remarkably close to old TX -- closer than what's now sold as 400TX.

70 years later, I'm not the same either.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I recall that "tri-X profesional" sold in 5 roll packs in 120was a 320ASA version, while regualr 120 Tri-X was sold at 400ASA and in Single roll packs.

I suspect that the Current TX400 is a complete redesign, needed t make it posible to coat at Building 38.

also back in the day, TRI-X was also made at Kodak Limited, and Kodak Pathe. Both were slightly different. the Canadian Version may have been a touch different as well. I recall a quote from one Famous Photographer (can't recall who) who said they he preferred the French version of Tri-X hands down.

Maybe it was the models he was shooting?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I started shooting Trix in the 60s. Our college lab supervisor hated Kodak, not their products but their business practices. I never did get what I thought was a straight answerer as to his reasoning. The only Kodak product he let us use without tossing a fit was Trix, said there was not a fast film that was as good at Trix. 90% of the film I shot was Trix until Tmax 400.

Do you find Tmax 400 too sharp, almost digital? Other traits you like about it?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Where does all this "digital look" talk come from, Alan? I never have figured it out. Enlarge digital capture and you get pixels, not grain. Grain can potentially be beautiful, although I don't court it in my own work except for the alter-ego of little 35mm snapshots.

If you went from scanning to actual darkroom printmaking, you'd realize just how different an animal TMY is from TX. It has a quite different characteristic curve, for example, favoring much better shadow gradation at full rated speed. But people prefer this or that particular look. No one shoe size fits everyone.

 

[Paul Howell]

I like the fairly straight characteristic curve, at 100LPM it is not that sharp in terms of resolving power. When used with a middle of the road developer the gain still fine, when pushed to 800, there are still good shadow details. A very forgiving film. The new version of TriX has a pretty straight curve, not the like the 70s version with the high shoulder. I just find Tmax 400 to be a very forgiving film.

 

[loccdor]

It's the only film Kodak is currently selling under its own name that I'd be truly sad to lose.

 

[_T_]

I will generally pick a t-grain or tabular grain film over cubic grain emulsions when available. I am looking for subject fidelity so grain is something to be minimized and resolution maximized.

But my partner, for whom I do the technical work, is an artist and she has various creative reasons for choosing various looks. Sometimes she wants TX and even though I don’t understand it myself it I do appreciate the results.

Though I would never personally choose TX I have to say I’ve seen many beautiful images made with it and I am impressed that it’s still in production in some form after all these decades.