Tri-X Today and Yesterday

Back in 1983 we went up north on an east coast tour of Civil War battlefields in VA and finally into NY where we got a great tour of Kodak Park. It was a gigantic building you could see blocks away. They even had their own fire department and the employees had a pool on top of the building I was told. We saw how they made paper and film and later toured the George Eastman house. It was all a wonderful experience. Down the road in Rochester I made it over to Light Impressions and stocked up on archival goodies. I guess they're gone now as well.

ColColt said:

According to that link there's no telling where that roll of Tri-X came from...seems a toss of the coin. I have no prolem purchasing a Canadian made Leitz lens but film from China I do.

Where are the manufacturing sites for the Kodak Alaris businesses? Major manufacturing locations include:

• Harrow, UK
• Shanghai, Xiamen and Wuxi, China
• Windsor, CO
• Manaus, Brazil
• Malanpour, India
• Pereslavl, Russia
• Rochester, NY

Click to expand...

Kodak Alaris' main product, and the business that they control the manufacturing for, is colour photographic paper and other colour photographic display materials - the classic ones, using light sensitive emulsions.

Kodak Alaris is also the saleas and marketing company that deals with Kodak photographic chemistry - both black and white and colour. The manufacture of that chemistry has been performed for Kodak since several years before the bankruptcy.

As posted above, Eastman Kodak still manufactures Kodak film - both commercial motion picture film and still films - all in one single production facility (Building 38) in that portion of Kodak Park in Rochester still owned and operated by Eastman Kodak.

Eastman Kodak sells and markets the motion picture film itself. Kodak Alaris has exclusive worldwide rights to market the Kodak still films. Kodak Alaris took over that portion of the marketing apparatus for Kodak colour paper, Kodak chemistry and Kodak still films that Eastman Kodak and its various international subsidiaries operated before the bankruptcy. Eastman Kodak and its international subsidiaries had ceased being its own distributor for all but the motion picture products several years ago. All those other products had been distributed by third party distributors for quite some time before the bankruptcy, so Kodak Alaris essentially took over the suppliers role with those distributors. The distributors themselves deal with retailers.

Kodak Alaris is owned by the pension plan for employees of Kodak Limited, the UK subsidiary of Eastman Kodak before the bankruptcy. That pension plan obtained the paper manufacturing facilities and the various marketing rights for the other Kodak products as part of the bankruptcy settlement. Due to certain provisions in the UK legislation, that pension plan had a sort of super priority with respect to a forcasted shortfall in the pension fund (that arose from errors in forecasting and poorer than expected market returns). The pension plan also had to contribute about $600 million in cash to the bankruptcy - most likely because the real estate assets transferred from Kodak Limited were worth more than the shortfall.

Kodak Alaris also received some other digital bussiness assets from Eastman Kodak as part of the settlement.

Here is a link showing the remaining Kodak Professional films: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/filmsIndex.jhtml

And here is a link showing the remaining Kodak Consumer films: http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/NewCo_About_Top/Consumer_Products_Services/Consumer_Films.htm

All of those still films are manufactured by Eastman Kodak and marketed by Kodak Alaris and its network of worldwide subsidiaries - which replaced all the worldwide subsidiaries of Eastman Kodak.

In case it isn't clear, historically most of the world didn't buy their Kodak product from or through Eastman Kodak. They dealt with the marketing division of their local version of Kodak: Kodak Canada, Kodak Limited (in the UK), Kodak South Africa, Kodak Australia, etc., etc. The Kodak Alaris subsidiaries have replaced those international Kodak subsidiaries.

Thanks for that info, very informative. In my own finite mind I have to wonder how things would be today had everyone not jumped on the digital do it all band wagon some years back. I'm all for technological advances in some realms of life, especially medicine, but; there are dinosaurs still around that don't like changes in all aspects of this marvelous world-digital photography being high on the totem pole.

GarageBoy said:

Everyone waxes poetry about Tri X and cites reasons that they use it is because HCB used it and what not- all while buying the new and improved versions-
I get it, it's cool using the same materials as the ones made famous by your heros
I just feel that people always push Tri X/D76 1:1 without acknowledging that its NOT the same
Embrace technology- Tri X/Xtol is a beautiful combo
Hell, TMY-2 and Xtol is beautiful

Click to expand...

I like Tri-X as it is. I do not care about what HCB thought and he never cared about what I thought. In fact we have not spoken in more years than I can remember.

ColColt said:

Thanks for that info, very informative. In my own finite mind I have to wonder how things would be today had everyone not jumped on the digital do it all band wagon some years back. I'm all for technological advances in some realms of life, especially medicine, but; there are dinosaurs still around that don't like changes in all aspects of this marvelous world-digital photography being high on the totem pole.

Click to expand...

The business model for the digital camera is fatally flawed. There are no consumables to speak of. Most people do not bother having prints made. The average digital user may have hundreds or thousands of images but no prints. The only way to make money is to fool the public into buying a better, greater camera. Kodak invented the digital camera and failed to see this pitfall. In this they failed Economics 101.

The ideal model is the Gillette model. You give out free razors but from then on men must buy your blades.

Well said. I think it's safe to say it was Kodak's Frankenstein monster. Digital does have some nice attributes and I do own a couple. The one biggest factor I consider a boon is the ability to see what you just shot. I don't need a card that can give me over 400 photos in RAW format. I never shot that much at any event nor would I upload that many from one card. That's a disaster waiting to happen.

I love taking pics of my Corgi. He's such a good looking fellow and very photogenic. This one was shot using the D200 and Nikon's 80-200 f/2.8 lens. One of the best yet of him.

_DEF3557aa by David Fincher, on Flickr

Gerald C Koch said:

The business model for the digital camera is fatally flawed. There are no consumables to speak of. Most people do not bother having prints made. The average digital user may have hundreds or thousands of images but no prints. The only way to make money is to fool the public into buying a better, greater camera. Kodak invented the digital camera and failed to see this pitfall. In this they failed Economics 101.

The ideal model is the Gillette model. You give out free razors but from then on men must buy your blades.

Click to expand...

You just put a timer inside it with self destruct when it elapses?
Gilettes model fails if I grow stubble.

Yeah, that's what they do with our smart phones to ensure a revenue stream..... when we start nearing the end of our contract term they slowly push bloatware and updates that slow and degrade performance to the point you have to upgrade to a new phone..... Did i ever mention I love the new Tri-X... <still on topic >

Xmas said:

You just put a timer inside it with self destruct when it elapses?
Gilettes model fails if I grow stubble.

Click to expand...

Lamar said:

Yeah, that's what they do with our smart phones to ensure a revenue stream..... when we start nearing the end of our contract term they slowly push bloatware and updates that slow and degrade performance to the point you have to upgrade to a new phone..... Did i ever mention I love the new Tri-X... <still on topic >

Click to expand...

My cell phone is just a cell phone. It is not set up to send or receive text or email. It has a camera which I have never used and it is not set up to send a photograph if one was taken. No malware, no worries about being used to listen in on conversations when I think that the telephone is off. Life is better without some dumb ass so called smart phone.

Arista Edu 400 has lots of grain.

chip j said:

Arista Edu 400 has lots of grain.

Click to expand...

and very contrasty :munch:

Never heard of it.

ColColt said:

Never heard of it.

Click to expand...

AKA Foma sold @ Freestyle

peter k. said:

and very contrasty :munch:

Click to expand...

Yes even with soft working developer the Fomapan 400 will blow high lights but nice grain.

ColColt said:

Somewhere I've read recently that the Tri-X of the 70-90's is not the same as the Tri-X of today...meaning developers and developing times back then can't be used with what's made today. Is there any credence to that? I use to use Tri-X with two developers with mostly either ID-11 Plus or Rodinal-many times with HC-110 and Dil B 1:31 for 5 1/2 minutes.

Long ago I had wondered how long ID-11 Plus would be around and made a very comparable developer I called "D-76 Plus" using the following formula for Tri-X. It worked like a charm.

H2O-750ml
Metol-30 gr(2g)
Sodium Sulfite-1500 gr or 100g
Hydroquinone-85 gr or 5.5g
Kodalk-38 gr or 2.5g
H2O to make 1 liter
Dilute 1:1

Click to expand...

i don't know about any super soup
or exactly how they have improved tri x over the years
i know there is tri x 400 and tri x 320 ( and in sheets there used to
be tri x 400 ortho ) and i have used all but the ortho in sheets ( 4x5 and 5x7 ) and
as well as rolls ( 135 + 120 ) and processed them in sprint film developer ( like id-11 and d-76 but different )
dk-50, ansco130, xtol, gaf universal as well as caffenol c ( made with roasted sumatra beans as well as instant gut rot )
and caf-c with ansco 130 mixed in, the films loved all the developers i developed it in. tri x ortho i only developed in dk50
and they were meant for each other. a buildingmate loved the mythic look AND how tri x 400 had a 7 stop latitude .. not sure what he used as a developer.

I frankly miss having a grainy film available. Old Tri-X (ie from the 70s) was definitely grainier and not as sharp. The new stuff is a better film if you want finer grain and better sharpness - it's kind of like HP5 on steroids. It makes beautiful enlargements (this is a scan of a 5x7 enlargement). In Rodinal, it still has a real presence and exceptional shadow detail:



Tri-X at 400, Rodinal 1:25 for 8 minutes, Konica Autoreflex and 50mm Hexanon f3.5 Macro lens



I've had no trouble with blown highlights with Fomapan 400, which I like a lot. I use either XTol 1:1 for 8 minutes at box speed, or HC110 at 1:63 for 11, also at box speed. Here are two examples of these developers on this film (these are scanned 5x7 enlargements)

XTol 1:1, Fomapan 400 at 400, 8 minutes. Pentax MX, 50mm f4 Macro lens:



Here is a snow shot, a surefire recipe for blown highlights, taken with an Olympus Pen FT on Foma 400 at 400, with HC110 at 1:63 for 11 minutes. Lots of detail in the snow.



I know people have said to rate it at 250 max, but my best enlargements and digitized negatives (I use a lightbox and a macro lens and reverse the digital image in GIMP) have come rating the film at box speed in all formats and developing as above. I simply don't overexpose and underdevelop. I've just never been happy with the results.

I'm currently experimenting with Pyrocat HD on this film and will post the results when I finish.

To get really grainy pictures now, I use Foma 400 (or Kentmere 400) in a half frame SLR and develop the film (which has been exposed at ASA 640) in Rodinal at 1:25 with double the normal agitation. Here's an example of this (Pen F, Foma 400 at 1/2 stop under if I remember correctly) Rodinal 1:25




Highly dilute HC110 is sensational with Foma 400 at box speed, as is Xtol. I'm going to try semi-stand developing at 1:100 with this next time. I still like (and always have) Rodinal or one of it's clones for Tri-X, new or old.

Again, bucking the trend, I still use colder solutions when developing, right at 68. Old habits die hard.

I've never used DK-50 but also tried Edwal's FG-7 and it did very good as well. My two favorites were still ID-11 Plus or HC-110 diluted 1:31. I found if I had some particularly contrasty negatives I could use one of Ansel Adams' Beers formulas to tone it down. You could do that with Kokak's PC filters but if using fiber based papers such as Kodabromide, Ilford's Galerie or Oriental Seagull you had to use other means.

Tri-X is and was a superb film. Contrasty days and situations I'd just shoot at ASA 250 and develop accordingly to tame the shadows.