Tri-X Pan roll film turns 70

[DREW WILEY]

The current TX400 doesn't have the same look as the classic old journalistic version of 35mm Tri-X, which seems grainier to me. The 320 speed version has a somewhat different characteristic curve, and is a sheet film more in line with older Tri-X sheet film.

Admittedly, neither of these are among my favorite films. But once in awhile I find a need for their special look, conspicuous grain n' all. Among Kodak products, I find TMax films far more versatile; and that's exactly why they replaced a whole suite of former Kodak films, and were intended to replace the Tri-X itself. But at least one old hound evaded the dog catcher, and is still hanging around.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

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.

TXP 320 hung around in 220 for quite a while-I think 2010 or 2012. It went with one of the mass axings around the same time Kodak killed off Plus-X, EPP, and a handful of older stocks. I have seen 120 rolls of TXP 320 from probably back in the 80s(may even have a box or two out in the freezer) but from my early days of getting serious about photography(~2005-2010), 120 was always TX400 and 220 always TXP320, and no cross-over between the two.

I still have some rolls of 320 TXP from close to the last batch out in the freezer, and will shoot some occasionally. I came to really like it and the extended toe when I got into 4x5, and stocked up on all I could reasonably find on Ebay.

As another side note, TXP 320 was the last roll film(at least that I'm aware of) that came with the base already "toothed" for retouching. The sheet film is still that way, or at least was a few year ago. I remember there being some lament on Pnet when it was discontinued for that reason. I always wanted to give hand retouching a try, and even have one of those vibrating light boxes in storage(along with an ancient bottle of base treatement), but never got around to it. Doing it on a 4x5 negative certainly seems a lot less daunting than a 6x6 negative! I remember too that around the roll film was discontinued, B&H still carried dyes for hand coloring.

For those who scan, TXP 320 is nice since you can glass mount it with plain glass as the base does a good job of preventing Newton rings.

 

[cmacd123]

TXP in 120 did exist... https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29180-USA/Kodak_TXP_120_Tri_X_Pan.html

 

[Paul Howell]

The current TX400 doesn't have the same look as the classic old journalistic version of 35mm Tri-X, which seems grainier to me.

The 70s and early 80s version of TriX was a different beast, grainer, high shoulder, but easy to push. Foma 400 is the closest to the 70s look, but not quite. All modern traditionally films seems to have a thinner emulsion and less grain. The 70s version of TriX could be pushed to 2400 in Diafine, modern Trix 1200 or so. Another factor is that in the 60s and 70s Newspapers wanted a puncher print so we developed to higher contrast.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

The 70s and early 80s version of TriX was a different beast, grainer, high shoulder, but easy to push. Foma 400 is the closest to the 70s look, but not quite. All modern traditionally films seems to have a thinner emulsion and less grain. The 70s version of TriX could be pushed to 2400 in Diafine, modern Trix 1200 or so. Another factor is that in the 60s and 70s Newspapers wanted a puncher print so we developed to higher contrast.

Not so, according to Kodak.

 

[cmacd123]

Not so, according to Kodak.

which statment is "not so"?

the fact that the name of the film changed from Tri-x to 400TX is the main hint that the product is defferent.

data sheet for the current Version is Kodak Publication F4017

the older version is in Kodak Publcation F9.

the April 2003 version of F9 states:
KODAK TRI-X Pan Film has been replaced by
KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 Film / 400TX.
KODAK TRI-X Pan Professional Film has been replaced by
KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320 Film / 320TXP.
For more information, see KODAK Publication F4017,
KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 Film / 400TX,
KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320 Film / 320TXP.

 

[Paul Howell]

As with cmad123 I recall with the new Trix was released in the 90s and both Modern and Popular Phot mags tested the new version, then was new release which surprised many of us as Kodak was going the big downsize in the early 2000s. As a PJ in the 70s and 80s my experience was that the newer versions had finer grain, and better resolution than the older versions.

What is your source?

 

[Augustus Caesar]

which statment is "not so"?

the fact that the name of the film changed from Tri-x to 400TX is the main hint that the product is defferent.

data sheet for the current Version is Kodak Publication F4017

the older version is in Kodak Publcation F9.

the April 2003 version of F9 states:
KODAK TRI-X Pan Film has been replaced by
KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 Film / 400TX.
KODAK TRI-X Pan Professional Film has been replaced by
KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320 Film / 320TXP.
For more information, see KODAK Publication F4017,
KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 Film / 400TX,
KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320 Film / 320TXP.

Just a name change. The film production was revised in 2007 to accommodate a new coating facility. The film's properties were not changed. Kodak went out of their way to say so.

https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f4017-400TX-2005.pdf

"To reflect our enduring commitment to black-and-white
photography, black-and-white film production will take place in
an even more advanced film-coating facility. New technology
applied to these superior, time-tested emulsions will result in
slightly different processing times for the film family. But the
same great films—those you've known and trusted for years—
will still deliver the same breathtaking results"

Don't you think that if they had improved the film (finer grain, etc.) they would have touted this fact?

Name change, 2005:

https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f9-Tri-X_Pan.pdf

1999 data sheet:

https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f9-Tri-X_Pan-199906.pdf

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't have a copy of the 70s TriX data sheet, but looking at the curve in AA The Negative (1981) for Trix sheet (320) film in HC110 on page 247 the curve is different than what is shown in the 1999 data sheet. My printer scanner has popped out on me, if I can get it up and running today I will scan the page.