Tri-X vs. T-Max

[Halka]

By the way, how does the production still go on with Kodak's current problems? I hope they are not just emptying the stores...

 

[georg16nik]

Now I do not want to start a discussion of beliefs and maybe this has been covered already. I was just reading some stuff from Steve Anchell where he claims Tri-X is better than T-max. That is how I understand it unless I missed something.
He wrote if I am allowed to quote
"The reason is that the thin, flat grains of silver literally do not
have the depth of rounded pebble shape grains which enable them to record microscopic
variations in contrast. In other words, the flatter the grain the less capable it is of recording
micro-contrast."...

Keep in mind that Steve Anchell refered to the 1980's.,
The current Tri-X and the 1980's Tri-X are not the same film, its just a name on the box.
Present day T-Max and Tri-X share much more similarities than they did in the 1980's.

 

[Harry Lime]

As many people have already stated, they both have their strengths and weaknesses (for a lack of a better word.)

If you want fine grain and 400 asa shoot TMY-2.
If you want a more forgiving film, shoot Tri-X

It's traditional vs modern in the looks department.

The statement regarding poor tonality makes no sense to me. If anything I would say that especially in 135 format TMY-2 has better tonality, due to the much finer grain.

Personally I prefer the spectral response of Tri-X, but the fine grain of TMY-2 is very impressive, as is the smooth tonality in 135.

I hope they are both around for a very long time to come.

 

[ic-racer]

With the current formulations of the two films I don't waste my time even checking to see which I have loaded in the camera. I buy what ever is available (t-max or tri-x) and use them together. I even stopped marking the cassettes as to which film was loaded in them because I process them together for the same time in t-max developer. I can't pick out prints made from one or the other. This is different than 20 years ago.

 

[georg16nik]

At least in 35mm double-x 5222 is more like Tri-X than the current Tri-X.

 

[DREW WILEY]

These are all very different animals in terms of grain, edge acutance, curve shape, speed. Comparing
apples with oranges with apricots. Pick your own favorite flavor. Even TMY400 has a very different
look and potential range of applications from TMX100. I remember way back when my wife took a
photo class and the teacher kept ranting at how lousy TMax was. Then one day she borrowed my
6x7 and took and printed a few shots in my darkroom. The instructor raved at how wonderful they
were. But then when he asked what film she had used and she reluctantly answered, TMax, he turned red-faced and quickly changed the subject. If you like vanilla ice cream, eat that; if you
prefer chocolate, fine too; can't make up your mind - purchase neopolitan and leave the rest of us
alone!

 

[removed account4]

people like what they like, and don't like what they don't like for whatever reasons they have
all films, no matter the film, takes getting used to,
and learning how to shoot it, and process it to get negatives to come out the way you like them.
i don't really think there are any bad films, just bad ways to shoot and process them.

like eddie, i shot tmx films when they came out i wasn't using 4x5, just 35mm and 120 ...
and i didn't really notice much difference between them and what i had been using before,
and i still can't really tell the difference between tmy or tmx and plus x or tri x ..
micro grain, micro contrast &c, really doesn't do much for me, so i don't notice it ...

ymmv

 

[BetterSense]

I disagree that Tri-X is "more forgiving" unless you specifically mean "more forgiving of bad darkroom technique".

Tri-X is LESS forgiving in the camera that TMAX. TMAX has such a long, straight scale, and good shadow speed, that it's more forgiving of exposure errors than Tri-X. I specifically choose TMAX for cameras with no exposure controls, like Brownies and toy cameras.

 

[Harry Lime]

I disagree that Tri-X is "more forgiving" unless you specifically mean "more forgiving of bad darkroom technique".

Tri-X is LESS forgiving in the camera that TMAX. TMAX has such a long, straight scale, and good shadow speed, that it's more forgiving of exposure errors than Tri-X. I specifically choose TMAX for cameras with no exposure controls, like Brownies and toy cameras.

I don't know, I have shot hundreds of rolls of TMY-2 and who knows how many rolls of Tri-X in all sorts of conditions and my developing technique is far from sloppy.
I hear your technical justification for your claim, but I find the highlights to be more delicate with TMY and care has to be given in the development process not to blow them. I use Barry Thornton's 2-bath, which obviously goes a long way in solving that problem and is extremely repeatable from roll to roll.

I agree that TMY-2 is better than Tri-X for shooting in low light, due to the straight toe. The tighter grain also gives TMY-2 an edge when pushing to 1250 or 1600.

 

[Roger Cole]

Both are top quality films that can make nice images. Tmax requires more care in developing; smaller changes produce stronger results. Needs more fixing and washing as well compared to traditional films. The upside is that it is so versatile. Someone familiar with it could emulate any look except for the grain. I've used tmy/tmy2 since it came out and have this familiarity with it. John Sexton would be a more reputable person of skill who can make the film do what he wants. It'd be a foolish business decision, but I think Kodak could discontinue tri-x and we'd be able to adapt to tmy2 because of it's versatility. But people who like grain and sloppy darkroom workers would howl.

I would howl, and I certainly don't consider myself particularly sloppy in the darkroom. In fact, I shoot TMY-2 in 4x5, but Tri-X in medium format and, on the occasions I shoot 35mm black and white, 35mm. This may seem backwards - the grain is more important in the smaller formats after all, and the statements here are claiming TMY is more forgiving of exposure. But while I can understand the sensitometry behind such a statement as it's almost impossible to block up TMY highlights short of deliberate and gross overexposure, it simply doesn't fit my experience. For whatever reasons, when I'm working slowly and methodically with the 4x5 and a spot meter, I can make TMY-2 do what I want. When I'm shooting faster with a hand held averaging Luna Pro (very rarely in incident mode) or with the AE prims on my 645 Pro or the internal meters of my 35mm cameras, I have considerably better success with Tri-X. This is aside from the facts that I like what Tri-X does in Diafine when I need to push it better than I like any pushing developer for TMY-2, and the fact that for some of my 35mm work the Tri-X grain adds something and for medium format it's pretty much invisible at my usual print sizes regardless.

But if Kodak were to cancel Tri-X I'd, a) switch to HP5+ and b) probably quit using the rest of the Kodak materials I currently use in the darkroom. It would be something between a silly protest and a fit of pique but I'd do it anyway.

As many people have already stated, they both have their strengths and weaknesses (for a lack of a better word.)

If you want fine grain and 400 asa shoot TMY-2.
If you want a more forgiving film, shoot Tri-X

It's traditional vs modern in the looks department.

The statement regarding poor tonality makes no sense to me. If anything I would say that especially in 135 format TMY-2 has better tonality, due to the much finer grain.

Personally I prefer the spectral response of Tri-X, but the fine grain of TMY-2 is very impressive, as is the smooth tonality in 135.

I hope they are both around for a very long time to come.

TMY has smoother tonality for that reason. That's not always better. Still, like most people here, provided the negative is well exposed and developed I seriously doubt I could tell a print from a medium format Tri-X negative from one made from an equally good TMY-2 negative, at least in print sizes up to 11x14 or so. If I look very close any my 11x14s cropped from 6x6 negatives I can see the beginnings of visible grain in Tri-X but I have to put my very nearsighted excellent close up vision about 4" from the print under good light. That way, yeah, I could probably tell the difference, especially if there were areas of upper zone densities and smooth tonalities, say an originally bright sky burned down to zone VI-VII. But from even far enough away to be in focus with my progressive lens glasses, I seriously doubt it.

But I agree about being more forgiving, though the reasons mystify me a little. I agree that TMY-2 is much more sensitive to development variations. I use a Jobo with temperature control and a Gra Lab timer and the same thermometer so I'm not too worried about that and don't have problems with TMY-2. But I get a higher percentage of good negatives when working fairly quickly in MF and 35mm with Tri-X, whatever the reasons.

Not a huge difference, granted. I'm not saying I can't shoot MF TMY-2 successfully. But I prefer Tri-X.

I disagree that Tri-X is "more forgiving" unless you specifically mean "more forgiving of bad darkroom technique".

Tri-X is LESS forgiving in the camera that TMAX. TMAX has such a long, straight scale, and good shadow speed, that it's more forgiving of exposure errors than Tri-X. I specifically choose TMAX for cameras with no exposure controls, like Brownies and toy cameras.

See above - it should be that way, but that isn't my experience.

If I wanted a 400 speed film for cameras like Brownies I'd shoot XP-2 super. Nothing resists harm from even gross over exposure like C-41.

 

[BetterSense]

I think we agree with each other; we are just using different words

I find the highlights to be more delicate with TMY and care has to be given in the development process not to blow them.

TMY must be one of the most blown-highlight-resistant films ever, so I do not agree with this statement. I think what you mean is that TMY will let you KEEP your highlights, even if they stretch beyond the range of some printing papers. I do not consider this a drawback; it is a feature--it is why TMY is so forgiving of exposure errors. Imagine that the 'highlights' were not highlights but instead the mid-tones of an image that you accidentally overexposed 3 stops. Due to TMY's long tonal range, they will print with perfect contrast, and the 'new' highlights at +3 stops from THAT will STILL look normal! This is nearly an ideal negative material; Ansel Adams would approve wholeheartedly.

However what this means is that if you shoot a scene with high brightness range, and then attempt to print the lower tones with a mid-tone contrast that seems 'right', the highlights may be off the range of the paper--because they **ARE** off the range of the paper--but they are STILL THERE. That is not blown highlights. All you have to do is massage your paper or burn the highlights in. And thank the Great Yellow Father that even though the lighting was harsh glaring and you set the film speed wrong and guessed the exposure wrong and thought you were holding your Olympus so you turned the shutter speed ring instead of the aperture ring, that all the information is still there.

If you are faced with a high-brightness-range negative, and you then naively reduce print contrast to bring the highlights onto the paper, your mid-tones may now look too muddy and 'wrong'. This is bad printing and lighting, not a bad negative material. If you say "well I can't control the lighting; I do street photography" well then, isn't that even more reason not to throw away detail?

I know what people are saying when they say traditional films are forgiving. Some "traditional" films with a distinct shoulder will compress highlights so that IF you expose the film so that the midtones you WANT fall on the steep part of the film curve, and you print them with contrast that appears 'right', the highlights are automatically compressed to fit on the paper...for that ONE paper and developer, for negatives exposed JUST that way, for scenes with THAT subject-brightness range. Some people call this forgiving.

But Tri-X is not one of those "traditional" films anyway. Honestly, it also has a long straight-line curve and fine grain. The only thing that distinguishes it from TMY is that it has a bit more grain, a bit more toe, and not as much DMAX.

TMY is simply the best B&W emulsion available for ALL formats. I shoot half-frame, 35mm, medium format, and 4x5. My exposure meters all broke and I could never remember them anyway. I expose TMY 'generously' and develop it for the Kodak recommended times. It has never let me down. It's like a racing engine that will just keep making power to 15,000rpm and ask for more. It's THAT kind of forgiving.

 

[ozphoto]

As many people have already stated, they both have their strengths and weaknesses (for a lack of a better word.)

If you want fine grain and 400 asa shoot TMY-2.
If you want a more forgiving film, shoot Tri-X

It's traditional vs modern in the looks department.

The statement regarding poor tonality makes no sense to me. If anything I would say that especially in 135 format TMY-2 has better tonality, due to the much finer grain.

Personally I prefer the spectral response of Tri-X, but the fine grain of TMY-2 is very impressive, as is the smooth tonality in 135.

I hope they are both around for a very long time to come.

I haven't used Tri-X in a long time, but when I was running a semi-pro photo lab, we'd sell quite a bit of Tri-X to our customers. When TMax hit the shelves, those same customers were clamouring to use it, BUT they were extremely disappointed with the results they were getting.

We would send off the film to Kodak for processing and I don't know what they were doing, but the grain usually ended up the size of golf balls! Their claims that it is "extremely fine-grained" were blown out of the water by (dodgy?) processing.

I used to process by hand, for those customers who wanted to pay for it, and the results were definitely better, but I found that TMax was not very forgiving with exposure errors, whereas the TriX handled the point-and-shoot/auto-everything_SLR/I-don't-have-any-idea-what-I'm-doing shooters much better.

My advice to them - learn how to use your camera in manual mode, to really get the best from TMax; if that's *not* your thing - stick to TriX, you'll be much happier with the results.

Personally, I love TriX. TMax is ok, but I loved the "grittiness" that TriX gave me, loved the "bite" my prints had whereas TMax left me a little cold as it was "too perfect" - what happened to my grain??

3200 though was outstanding - I loved that film and shooting sports at night meant it was *always* pushed to its limit (and often over it) and I always got usable images.

 

[Harry Lime]

I think we agree with each other; we are just using different words
etc
.

I don't wet print much these days. Everything is scanned (not on a cheap flatbed), processed digitally in Nuke and them output on Ilford fiber so we are working with two entirely different workflows.

 

[GraemeMitchell]

Once you expose and process enough film and learn what you're doing, what you're after, and how to print your ideas, I think it becomes possible to use all of the mainstream 400 speed films interchangeably, as they're all extremely flexible. This is within the reason of course, but generally if the picture isn't good because it was on tmx instead of tri-x then the user either didn't know what they're doing or it's not really a good picture to begin with. Right now I use HP-5, Tri-x and Tmax 400, and I base my use on whatever I can get cheapest. This summer HP-5 120 was $3.50 someplace so I loaded up on it. Now Tmax 400 in 120 is on sale for $4 a roll at bh right now, so I bought a load. Tri-x, I love, but it's $ right now. Overall, I think developer choice plays more of a part in negative differences, and then even more so printing materials + techniques.

There's a lot of psychology to our processes though, which is what makes this fun, so use whatever makes you feel good or confident to shoot and print.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Keep in mind that Steve Anchell refered to the 1980's.,
The current Tri-X and the 1980's Tri-X are not the same film, its just a name on the box.
Present day T-Max and Tri-X share much more similarities than they did in the 1980's.

This is very true. When T-Max came first came out I blew out the highlights on 35mm film. Tri-X worked much better. Since then both films have changed. Tri-X is better than ever as long as you don't shoot it at box speed, de-rate to 200, and develop in a general purpose developer (D/76 1:1 or XTOL 1:1).

You have to use the right materials to get the look you like.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Keep in mind that Steve Anchell refered to the 1980's.,
The current Tri-X and the 1980's Tri-X are not the same film, its just a name on the box.
Present day T-Max and Tri-X share much more similarities than they did in the 1980's.

I infrequently use TMY-2 but in small format it has a smoothness that has somewhat of a medium format look. I would like to experiment with 1980s Leica glass and TMY-2. Simpliflying to a Leica allows me to downsize to one camera and one Leitz enlarger; simple, small, and a joy to use.

 

[markbarendt]

Tri-X is better than ever as long as you don't shoot it at box speed, de-rate to 200...

I used to buy into the blanket de-rate idea, even suggested it to others, no longer though. There are simply too many variables. Not saying its necessarily bad, just not needed.

My experience with TX, TXP, TMY, HP5, Delta 100&400, and ... is that they all work just fine exactly per the normal info provided by Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford.

Unless the person shooting has personally tested for her/himself and found shadows lacking at box I see no point in giving up a stop at the camera.

 

[PKM-25]

I used to buy into the blanket de-rate idea, even suggested it to others, no longer though. There are simply too many variables. Not saying its necessarily bad, just not needed.

My experience with TX, TXP, TMY, HP5, Delta 100&400, and ... is that they all work just fine exactly per the normal info provided by Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford.

Unless the person shooting has personally tested for her/himself and found shadows lacking at box I see no point in giving up a stop at the camera.

+1, I always shoot at box speed and make adjustments in development, why add one more variable to the equation is what I figure...

 

[Roger Cole]

Once you expose and process enough film and learn what you're doing, what you're after, and how to print your ideas, I think it becomes possible to use all of the mainstream 400 speed films interchangeably, as they're all extremely flexible. This is within the reason of course, but generally if the picture isn't good because it was on tmx instead of tri-x then the user either didn't know what they're doing or it's not really a good picture to begin with. Right now I use HP-5, Tri-x and Tmax 400, and I base my use on whatever I can get cheapest. This summer HP-5 120 was $3.50 someplace so I loaded up on it. Now Tmax 400 in 120 is on sale for $4 a roll at bh right now, so I bought a load. Tri-x, I love, but it's $ right now. Overall, I think developer choice plays more of a part in negative differences, and then even more so printing materials + techniques.

There's a lot of psychology to our processes though, which is what makes this fun, so use whatever makes you feel good or confident to shoot and print.

I would agree with that. I can certainly use it. I just have a preference for Tri-X when working faster with less precise tools. But then again:

This is very true. When T-Max came first came out I blew out the highlights on 35mm film. Tri-X worked much better. Since then both films have changed. Tri-X is better than ever as long as you don't shoot it at box speed, de-rate to 200, and develop in a general purpose developer (D/76 1:1 or XTOL 1:1).

You have to use the right materials to get the look you like.

Funny, I knew about the changes from TMY to TMY-2 but hadn't thought to revisit it in 35mm and medium format, and it never occurred to me that TMX had changed. Good point.

Going back to the first post though, I'm not going to change films back and forth because one is on sale for a dollar a roll less than the other. That's false economy to me. If you really have to make every penny count and shoot a lot of rolls, and if you have your process down with both to the point you don't waste material getting it right (which will quickly cost more than the discount) then that makes sense.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I used quite a bit of the old TMY and compared to TMY-2 I can barely tell a difference, even in 35mm. The prints look identical in tonality, but with a very slight grain advantage to TMY-2.

What is it you feel is very different with modern TMax 400 versus old?

 

[cliveh]

I personally dislike tabular grain technology, as laying tabular (unnatural grain shape in the first place) grain in one general direction is not natural and recording light on them even less so. Tri-X however is a real film. An organic of the film world to coin a phrase.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Which is which, Clive?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

and don't forget, T-max has changed formulations as well, most recently TMY, but I recall there being somewhat of an unannounced or un-noticed change in the early mid-90's to TMY.

 

[cliveh]

Which is which, Clive?

Nice one Thomas, my guess is the guy in the chair is Tri-X and the others are T-Max, but who can tell?

 

[Harry Lime]

>Thomas Bertilsson:
> Which is which, Clive?



From a highly compressed low resolution jpeg?

The difference between the two isn't day and night, but it's there and noticeable at higher resolutions.
That said it's not a matter of one being better than the other. It's a matter of personal taste.