tri-x "pan"? what is that?

[Stephen Benskin]

Hi:
Pan X Pan= ASA 32
Plus X Pan = ISO 125
Double X Pan= ASA 250
Tri X Pan = ISO 400 (320 Pro)
Royal X Pan = ASA 1200

In the way of the "X", an old time evplaned it to me (a very long time ago) is, Pan X = 1 stop, Plus X = 2 stops, XX = 2 1/2 stops, Tri X = 3 stops and Royal X Pan = 4 stops.

Except when those films were created all film speeds were around one stop slower. Plus=X was 50, Double-X was 100, and Tri-X was 200.

Tri-X was also available in orthochromatic until the late 80s or early 90s.

 

[ghost]

If you guys don't mind me tacking on...I've been wondering about Tri-X myself...

...what IS the difference between the 320 and the 400?

Are they both available in all sizes?

Why offer two films so close in name and speed? :confused:

 

[Lee L]

If you guys don't mind me tacking on...I've been wondering about Tri-X myself...

...what IS the difference between the 320 and the 400?

Are they both available in all sizes?

Why offer two films so close in name and speed? :confused:

Here's Kodak's take on the differences: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

Different granularity, different developing times, different characteristic curves ...

Lee

 

[nickandre]

Kodak makes 2 tri-x films. One is ASA 320 available in roll film and sheet sizes and one is 400 and is available in 35mm and roll film. Don't ask me why, it just is. Pan is left on to distinguish between the two.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

From looking at the curves, you must come to the conclusion that they are different films. Tri-X 400 has a rather average toe with a nice long straight line portion. 120 Tri-X 320 has a very long toe with an up sweep in the upper straight line portion. 4x5 Tri-X 320 is somewhere in between.

 

[Ian Grant]

Tri-X has always been very variable. At one point Kodak made & coated it in 3 countries and all had different characteristics.

Kodak film developer data-sheets used to list times for Eastman Kodak Tri-, Kodak Canada Tri-X and Kodak UK Tri-X.

Ian

 

[TLR]

Profilm is a marque of the spanish company AP: http://www.apphoto.es/ap_products/docs/eng/profilm.htm
Regards.

 

[BetterSense]

Kodak document J-78 (October 2002) gives different 21C development times for

"TRI-X Pan" (9.5min)
"PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 Film / 400TX" (9 min)
"PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320 Film = 320TXP" (11 3/4 min)

Interestingly, Kodak document F-9 (April 2003) lists all the development times for "TRI-X Pan film / TX" while noting that "KODAK TRI-X Pan film has been replaced by KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 / 400TX"

So it seems to me like Tri-X pan and the modern 400TX are actually different emulsions? It seems Kodak is treating them as separate films in their documents. Is it safe to assume that the Arista Premium version is actually the 400TX and not 'Tri-X Pan'?

 

[Lee L]

Is it safe to assume that the Arista Premium version is actually the 400TX and not 'Tri-X Pan'?

No, that's not a safe assumption. Why would Kodak start up an old line and gear back up to produce a film that was replaced several years ago? For a test rather than an assumption see a .pdf of the newer 400TX vs Arista Premium 400 in another thread here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I wouldn't call those different films. BTW, the vertical axis on that .pdf is in stops, multiply by 0.30 to get relative log density, or if you want to figure gamma.

Lee

 

[BetterSense]

Lee,

I was under the clear impression, from the Kodak documents, that the 400TX was the newer film and Tri-x Pan the older film.

 

[Lee L]

Lee,

I was under the clear impression, from the Kodak documents, that the 400TX was the newer film and Tri-x Pan the older film.

It is. I changed my post to reflect the nomenclature you're using and avoid confusing you. I've been through several Tri-X changes and still call whatever is current "Tri-X", especially when the change was made several years ago. If you look above the big 400TX on the new boxes, it still says Tri-X 400. IIRC, part of the reason for changing Tri-X was the construction of new lines and opening of new plants in China to produce the film. I also believe the old lines were shut down, and may have been disassembled. You'd have to ask PE or someone else in the know for better info there. But I think it's unlikely that the old version of Tri-X remains in production.

In any case, the test was current emulsion Kodak Tri-X (400TX) vs. Arista Premium 400, both bought fresh from the store since Dec 1 2008.

Lee

 

[Stephen Benskin]

From what I understand, when Kodak built a new color coating alley, they moved the black and white to the old one.

 

[wogster]

If you guys don't mind me tacking on...I've been wondering about Tri-X myself...

...what IS the difference between the 320 and the 400?

Are they both available in all sizes?

Why offer two films so close in name and speed? :confused:

I think that Tri-X went from 200 to 320, then later was redesigned as a 400 speed film, but for some weird reason, Tri-X 320 was kept around. Kodak should have gradually added Tri-X 400 in the sizes they kept making Tri-X 320 in , then gradually phase it out. This probably should have happened decades ago.....

Doesn't really matter much to me, I use HP5 when I want a fast film....

 

[Lee L]

I think that Tri-X went from 200 to 320, then later was redesigned as a 400 speed film, but for some weird reason, Tri-X 320 was kept around. Kodak should have gradually added Tri-X 400 in the sizes they kept making Tri-X 320 in , then gradually phase it out. This probably should have happened decades ago.....

Doesn't really matter much to me, I use HP5 when I want a fast film....

They keep both films in production because they are different films. 320 TXP has a shorter toe and more highlight contrast with a retouching base, is designed for studio work, and is less forgiving of underexposure than 400TX. 400TX is for shooting in varied, less controlled lighting. People choose to shoot the 320TXP for specific reasons.

Look at the curves in the Kodak tech bulletin link five posts back.

Lee

 

[wogster]

They keep both films in production because they are different films. 320 TXP has a shorter toe and more highlight contrast with a retouching base, is designed for studio work, and is less forgiving of underexposure than 400TX. 400TX is for shooting in varied, less controlled lighting. People choose to shoot the 320TXP for specific reasons.

Look at the curves in the Kodak tech bulletin link five posts back.

Lee

So why didn't they call 400TXP something else, like Quad-X maybe, sounds like some genius in the marketing department wasn't doing his job, because it's been confusing photographers who run into both for over 30 years now....

 

[Lee L]

TXP has always been considered a professional film, and has never to my knowledge been available in 35mm, where most amateurs live. Perhaps Kodak has a long established habit of expecting more of professional photographers, and thinks they might read the tech info they provide and notice the difference when they print, rather than presuming that two films with different speeds are the same.

Here are the first paragraphs of the tech info bulletin:

KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320 and 400 Films are high-speed panchromatic films that are a good choice for photographing dimly lighted subjects or fast action, for photographing subjects that require good depth of field and fast shutter speeds, and for extending the distance range for flash pictures. TRI-X 400 Film (400TX) is available in120 and 135 sizes and 35 and 70 mm long rolls. You can retouch the 120-size film on the emulsion side. TRI-X 400 Film is recommended for push-processing applications.

TRI-X 320 Films (320TXP) feature excellent tone gradation and brilliant highlights. They are especially well suited to low-flare interior lighting or flash illumination. They are also useful for portraiture with low-contrast backlighting outdoors.

One TRI-X 320 Film (320TXP) is available in 120 and 220 sizes on a 3.9-mil acetate base, the other is available in sheets on a 7-mil ESTAR Thick Base. You can retouch
these films on the emulsion or base side.

The overlaid film curves for TXP and 400TX are attached. In the chart TXP development times are 8, 10, 12, and 14 minutes, 400TX development times are 6, 8, 10, and 12 minutes.

Notice that tungsten filter factors in the tech info bulletin also differ between the films.

Lee

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Lee,

I think you meant TXP has a longer toe.

Steve

 

[Lee L]

Lee,

I think you meant TXP has a longer toe.

Steve

Correct Steve. I misspoke. Thanks.

It's obvious for anyone taking the trouble to look at the tech info.

Lee

 

[John Shriver]

TXP is a long-toe film for portraiture. Designed to compress shadows and expand highlights, in low-key portraiture lighting.

The name was changed from Tri-X 400 to 400TX when they moved all B&W film production to a new coating facility in Canada. At that time they had to reformulate all the B&W films, and new developing times were published.

Tri-X was panchromatic from introduction. At one time there was a Tri-X Ortho sheet film, for portraiture of ruddy-faced men. Long gone.

The film that changed from orthochromatic to panchromatic was Verichrome, which changed to Verichrome Pan when it went panchromatic in 1956.

 

[Ian Grant]

Tri-X was panchromatic from introduction. At one time there was a Tri-X Ortho sheet film, for portraiture of ruddy-faced men. Long gone.

The film that changed from orthochromatic to panchromatic was Verichrome, which changed to Verichrome Pan when it went panchromatic in 1956.

There were different grades of Panchromatic films, Tri-x changed from Type C to type B between it's introduction around 1940 and the mid 50's.

Type C films were also called Hyper-panchromatic because they had far greater sensitivity to red than conventional type B Panchromatic films.

Ironically Kodak should be celebrating 70 years of Tri-X next year, just 6 years after they celebrated 50 years of Tri-X

Ian