Tri-X Pan . . .

John Galt · Oct 25, 2019

I recently acquired a sealed pro-pack (10 rolls) of old Kodak Tri-X Pan 120 with the green label and an exp date of 3/1982. The seller said it has always been frozen and that it is a different emulsion than the modern Tri-X.

How does it differ from the modern Tri-X?
What ASA should I shoot it at?
I have a metric crap-load of old Microdol X . . best times?

Thanks in advance! So much knowledge here that I deeply appreciate.

jim appleyard · Oct 25, 2019

I don't normally shoot film this old, but I'm not sure Mic-X would be the best. Many folks claim HC-110 is great on old film and if you poke around for old threads, you may find some good info. I'd go ASA 200 or even lower, bracket your exposures. Lots of folks shot this at 200 when new!

Guillaume Zuili · Oct 25, 2019

160 / 200 is fine. No worries.
Rodinal at 1.50 will always give beauties

John Galt · Oct 27, 2019

Thanks for the replies . . my main question is how does Tri-X Pan from the 70s-80s differ from the modern Tri-X??

bdial · Oct 27, 2019

It will be grainy (er) compared to the current stuff.

summicron1 · Oct 27, 2019

it should be good at 200 or so, and in addition to a bit more grain you can expect a bit of base fog even if it was frozen -- so the negs will all have a kind of gray cast, but will print/scan just fine, it's as if the film has a built-in neutral density filter.

MattKing · Oct 27, 2019

In case you haven't located it, here is a datasheet for the older Tri-X, or at least an older version of Tri-X: https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f9-Tri-X_Pan.pdf

dpurdy · Oct 27, 2019

It is kind of a moot point I think because the nature of the film will change with that much age. From my recent experience shooting old frozen film (below zero) I got more base fog and more grain and a need for longer processing time. The film I just shot was TMY outdated in 2008 and I processed it in XTOL.

Pentode · Oct 27, 2019

Tri-X was reformulated since then and now has much less grain although the tonality is very similar.

I liked the older version very much, partly because the grain was so prominent.

voceumana · Oct 27, 2019

Microdol-X reduces film speed considerably when used undiluted. Used at 1:3 (1 part Microdol-X combined with 3 parts of water) you'll get full speed, but long developing times. Kodak used to recommend developing at 75 degrees F to speed up the developing time (stop or rinse and fixer should be at the same temperature as the developer temp).

Old Tri-X was less like T-Grain than current Tri-X, as I understand it.

Note that in 120, Tri-X was available as Tri-X and Tri-X Professional, and they are different films. Make sure the datasheet you are using applies to the type of film you have.

drpsilver · Oct 28, 2019

John Galt said:
Thanks for the replies . . my main question is how does Tri-X Pan from the 70s-80s differ from the modern Tri-X??

27 Oct 2019

John:

If I recall correctly Tri-X was a bit more contrasty than Tri-X Pan. I think Kodak was trying formulate a "portrait like" film that was faster than Plus-X (IMO one of the best films produced). Tri-X was rated at ASA 400, while Tri-X Pan was rated at ASA 320. With film this old the above differences are probably indistinguishable. Rating your film at 200 or lower is a good idea. I would also push the film development a little to guarantee that you get something to print. AA always said better to have dense negs that thin negs.

I have not exposed film this old, but I have developed film exposed fresh and developed 50 years later. I found that HC110 worked well for me.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Darwin

Christiaan Phleger · Oct 28, 2019

Good Advice and I'd say that you should consider DK-50 1:1 which was a Kodak recommended developer for this film of this era. I'll go against the grain Ha and say you'll probably end up shooting it closer to 250-320 in DK-50 1:1. I was gifted a large stock of Plus-X Pan in 120 from this era and ultimately I thought it looked best in DK-50 1:1. I believe D-76 1:1 times worked well. More modern developers like Xtol and Ilfosol sometimes would barely produce an image where as the DK-50 1;1 was a robust neg, I had to expose closer to box speed than I was with the modern developers. It had lost less speed than I was expecting and once I dialed in a better EI the DK-50 negs were top notch with the lowest fog tested.
I recall a Tri-x formulation shift just before this stock of film was made so this would have been the stock I would have been using through the 1980's into perhaps at least the mid-1990's. I used hundred foot rolls weekly at the newspaper and to keep my darkroom time interesting I would swap in a 100ft roll of Tri-X instead of our standard Tmax 400 so I got to know this film in 35mm and later on in 120. There used to be an additive that you could put into D-76 and would make Tri-X go to like 12,500-25,000 easy but had massive grain and no latitude. At some football and night baseball games you could really dial in the exposure/development to match what the presses could do and it was always a sweet feeling when I'd open up a fresh copy and see my shots reproduced well. Back on topic...This era of Tri-x had more grain than the next one, which was the one previous to the one on the shelf right now which undoubtedly has T-Grain emulsion in whole or part. My personal EI for this in 35mm was 640 in Tmax developer but I was always in lower light and printing a too dense neg was much less desirable. Good old D-76 at 1:1 was and is a solid standard and I would think the OP would be wise to at least do one roll in this old faithful combination. The good thing is that you have 5 rolls and you can use one as a test and do two batches of two rolls pretty easily. Good luck have fun

Christiaan Phleger · Oct 28, 2019

I meant to add that Microdol-X 1:0 shot at 200 is also a very good option, yes you lose one stop of speed but as I mentioned it is possible that it didn't lose as much as you might think and the delightful MDX with its high sulfite and metol only (like lots of other high def devs) and that exciting -X. The higher sulfite can actually work to the benefit of the older film allowing an uncovering of further development sites on the grain.

John Galt · Oct 28, 2019

RidingWaves said:
Good Advice and I'd say that you should consider DK-50 1:1 which was a Kodak recommended developer for this film of this era. I'll go against the grain Ha and say you'll probably end up shooting it closer to 250-320 in DK-50 1:1. I was gifted a large stock of Plus-X Pan in 120 from this era and ultimately I thought it looked best in DK-50 1:1. I believe D-76 1:1 times worked well. More modern developers like Xtol and Ilfosol sometimes would barely produce an image where as the DK-50 1;1 was a robust neg, I had to expose closer to box speed than I was with the modern developers. It had lost less speed than I was expecting and once I dialed in a better EI the DK-50 negs were top notch with the lowest fog tested.
I recall a Tri-x formulation shift just before this stock of film was made so this would have been the stock I would have been using through the 1980's into perhaps at least the mid-1990's. I used hundred foot rolls weekly at the newspaper and to keep my darkroom time interesting I would swap in a 100ft roll of Tri-X instead of our standard Tmax 400 so I got to know this film in 35mm and later on in 120. There used to be an additive that you could put into D-76 and would make Tri-X go to like 12,500-25,000 easy but had massive grain and no latitude. At some football and night baseball games you could really dial in the exposure/development to match what the presses could do and it was always a sweet feeling when I'd open up a fresh copy and see my shots reproduced well. Back on topic...This era of Tri-x had more grain than the next one, which was the one previous to the one on the shelf right now which undoubtedly has T-Grain emulsion in whole or part. My personal EI for this in 35mm was 640 in Tmax developer but I was always in lower light and printing a too dense neg was much less desirable. Good old D-76 at 1:1 was and is a solid standard and I would think the OP would be wise to at least do one roll in this old faithful combination. The good thing is that you have 5 rolls and you can use one as a test and do two batches of two rolls pretty easily. Good luck have fun

Actually I have 20 rolls . thanks for this response RidingWaves. I think I will try it with D-76 1+1 because I have some on hand. I will acquire some DK-50 to try as well . . I may even have some in my stash, I will have to check.

John Galt · Oct 28, 2019

RidingWaves said:
I meant to add that Microdol-X 1:0 shot at 200 is also a very good option, yes you lose one stop of speed but as I mentioned it is possible that it didn't lose as much as you might think and the delightful MDX with its high sulfite and metol only (like lots of other high def devs) and that exciting -X. The higher sulfite can actually work to the benefit of the older film allowing an uncovering of further development sites on the grain.

Thanks again RidingWaves. What dev time would you use with Mic X 1:0??

Christiaan Phleger · Nov 3, 2019

I'll have to double check with my copy of Kodak Masters guide from around this era and get back to you but you might want to check inside of those boxes remember back in the day Kodak would actually include detailed shooting and developing instructions. Very nice you have 20 rolls you should be able to do a couple of different looks with what you have.

Bill Burk · Nov 3, 2019

I once had a few rolls of old Tri-X handed to me. I found it to have an “ASA” of 100 due to relatively high fog. B+F 0.38

I would develop between 11 and 13 minutes in D-76 1:1 and select Exposure index at 64 or 100 depending on how I was metering.

You have to give more exposure to “rise above the fog”.

Bill Burk · Nov 3, 2019

I also had some old 4x5 Tri-X and its characteristics were about the same.

The fog is why people always say you lose speed with old fast film.

Remarkably, slow film doesn’t have that issue at all.

Christiaan Phleger · Nov 12, 2019

I just found what I was referencing the Kodak Tri-X data sheet that was included with rolls of 120 and 35mm film dated 7/87 so the emulsion the OP noted.
Microdol-X 1:0 is 10 min at 68'F and DK-50 1:1 is 6 min at 68'F. The times for Microdol-X 1:0 are exactly the same as the Kodak numbers for D-76 1:1.

John Galt · Nov 12, 2019

RidingWaves said:
I just found what I was referencing the Kodak Tri-X data sheet that was included with rolls of 120 and 35mm film dated 7/87 so the emulsion the OP noted.
Microdol-X 1:0 is 10 min at 68'F and DK-50 1:1 is 6 min at 68'F. The times for Microdol-X 1:0 are exactly the same as the Kodak numbers for D-76 1:1.

Thanks!!!! I have three rolls of the modern Tri-X left before I start shooting this stuff.

Tri-X Pan . . .

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency