• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Tri-X question?

If sheet film, it's necessarily TXT/TXP (320). If 35mm, it's necessarily TX (400). If 120, it could be either one.
 
Just to confuse matters, I think the 400 used to come in sheet film sizes as well, but not for many moons now.

Peter Gomena
 
I believe there used to be a 200 version, too.
And to confuse matters, the film has changed a lot as time went by. Today's Tri-X has probably nothing in common with the one sold thirty years go.
 
VladSoare said:
I believe there used to be a 200 version, too. ...
Click to expand...

It might have started as a 200 ASA film (1954), but film speeds doubled overnight somewhere in the late fifties (1959?) when the standard was revised, so it would become a 400 ASA film.
 
Tri-X used to be that 400 ASA film back in the days of famous photographers.
 
It's still available. TX has been around for a long time in it's current form. Decades.

Salgado used a lot of TXP320 in Mamiya RB67s back in the day. Now mostly digi

The grain of all tri-x has pretty much the same look as the 1950s when it was 200asa but the TXP was/is balanced for tungsten lighting. It's now only available in sheets. Tri-X 400 always sold in much larger quantities.

It is a very forgiving film. Huge lattitude! Pep Bonet and Philip Blenkinsop are a couple of people using it for journalism. There are plenty of others.
 
Current Tri-X sheet film is different from the stuff sold just 5 years back. It is still beautiful stuff to use. It seems to be sharper, smoother and less grainy these days.

Peter Gomena
 
The original Tri-X was known for its coarse grain. Today's Tri-X is quite fine grained for an ASA 400 film. Also, the current Tri-X makes use of sensitizing dyes to achieve its speed (that stubborn magenta stain). While I haven't personally seen a Tri-X from the fifties, I have a hunch that it was "clean". I think that this sensitizing dye thing is a fairly recent fashion.
So I'd venture saying that our Tri-X has nothing in common with the original one, apart from its name.
 
Sensitizing dyes are used from almost the "very beginning", from the 1800's. Without them, a bromoiodide emulsion is sensitive only to ultraviolet and blue wavelengths.

When green sensitizer dye (magenta dye) is added, film becomes "orthochromatic".

When red sensitizer dye (cyan dye) is added in addition to green sensitizer, film becomes "panchromatic" and is sensitive to red, green and blue light - the whole visible spectrum. Tri-X is and has always been a panchromatic film, and there is no other way to do this than sensitizing dyes.

There are differences in sensitizing dyes, though. Some are better than others, meaning that they "catch" more light, or move that energy better to silver halide, or block less light from other wavelengths. All these things increase the film speed without increasing grain.

Some dyes might be harder to "wash out", leaving some minor magentaish tint in film. This is mentioned in Kodak datasheet which says that a slight tint is allowed and does not change the characteristics of a film at all. So, just get over it.

To OP;

Please consider the different properties of different films to select your favorite. A "famous" film will not make your images look the same than those famous pictures. There are many, many, many other "famous" films used by many famous photographers in addition to TriX; more likely, TriX seems to be an "internet legend".

TriX 320 and TriX 400 are both "pop" in various and different circles. TriX 400 was used much more, leading to the discontinuation of TriX 320. If you are looking for the "pop" film of "street photography", it's usually said to be TriX 400, not 320.
 

I thought Belkinsop used T-Max 400.
 
There's also Tri-X reversal, or was, I got some here.

I got some FourX too.


80A filter?
 
Athiril said:
There's also Tri-X reversal, or was, I got some here.

I got some FourX too.

80A filter?
Click to expand...

Tri-X reversal is still available.

Indeed. 80a looks nice with 400TX.
(no sky though)

Also there is Eastman 5222 (Double X negative) movie film (16 & 35mm only)

which has a much more classic tri-x look and is available really, really cheaply.
http://www.tapesuperstore.com/koblandwhned.html

Also, Kodak Australia (Entertainment) will sell it. They're about 500m from my office. I'm going to try and pickup 1000' next week
 
Last edited by a moderator:
andrewkirkby said:
Salgado used a lot of TXP320 in Mamiya RB67s back in the day. Now mostly digi
Click to expand...
Pentax 645 and before that, Leicas.

Hard to even imagine him lugging around an RB.

He went digital because getting film through airports is such a pain.
 

You split some 35mm with me

I got some DoubleX in 16mm
 

I can remember Tri-X being a "legend" long before the internet was just a gleam in Al Gore's eye.

I agree with your other statements about "famous films", though.
 

I've used a fair bit of 5222 and I wasn't all that impressed with it to tell the truth. Great for cine negatives, but not so great for photographic prints. That's not to say you can't do it. I have a couple of really nice ones made from Eastman 5222 negatives; but all in all I've done much better with Tri-X. Eastman 5222 was an interesting side show for me when I could get short ends for $.18 USD/foot. These days, you can't find short ends or re-cans for love, money, or a promise of your first born offspring; and at $.38USD/foot for factory packaging, I'll pass. For $.34USD/foot I can get Freestyle's Arista Premium 400 which is really and truly just re-badged Tri-X. If you really want grit and grain from Tri-X, just develop it in Rodinal. Want a little less? Use HC-110. In the end, you can always frame loosely in camera and crop aggressively when you print to emphasize the grain. Too easy and works well even if you like using a fine grain developer like D-76 or XTOL. Naturally, the extra costs associated with international orders may substantially change the economics of it for you; but for the US users, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If you still want to use it though, go for it. Like I said, it's not bad. I developed mine in D-76 1+1 for 7 minutes at 75F for a more or less "normal" contrast index that worked well using a diffusion enlarger. Shadow detail was adequate, but it was a little bit on the flat side through the mid tones and looked to me to shoulder off fairly sharply in the highlights.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register