Tri-X vs. T-Max

[cliveh]

>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.

Well said Harry.

 

[Chuck_P]

Which is which, Clive?

Ok, my guess Thomas.......the two in the middle are traditional grain and the 1st and 4th are tabular grain, but I don't really know.

 

[Roger Cole]

Yeah. If these are from 35mm, print them to 11x14 and it won't be too hard to tell by looking at the prints. At this size online, no way.

 

[lxdude]

Ok, my guess Thomas.......the two in the middle are traditional grain and the 1st and 4th are tabular grain, but I don't really know.

My guess also.

 

[lxdude]

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.

What defines "natural" in film manufacturing? Strange word to use.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

>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.

If it's a personal choice, there clearly must be some way of telling them apart other than pixel peeping or 30x40" prints. If there is no immediate difference, then why even bother distinguishing between them?

Portraits of woman is 120 TMY-2, girl is 35mm TMY, man is 120 Delta 400 (cropped 645), and boy is 120 Tri-X 400.
The pictures are all scans of prints on Ilford MGIV fiber, and they are at max quality level, not highly compressed.
Looking at the prints, at 11x14 size I can't tell them apart based on grain.

 

[Roger Cole]

I haven't compared them at the same print size from the same negative size since TMY came out. At that time I could certainly tell them apart in 35mm -> 8x10 prints. I know Tri-X has changed and is finer grained. If it's really that close now, use whichever you like (which, really, is what we all do anyway.)

Any differences in tonality and so forth would be more than swamped by differences in individual photos so the only real way to compare that would be to shoot the same subject under the same light.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

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

This is what is worrying me too! We are bathing in the opulence of having two B&W emulsions, made by a manufacturer who's struggling to survive, and discussing the differences of their similarities (nothing wrong with that), but will it last?

I really do hope so, it took me years to find an alternative for the regretted AGFAPAN 400, and finally went with Tri-X...

 

[georg16nik]

What defines "natural" in film manufacturing? Strange word to use.

Silver chloride grains prefer to form regular cubes, bounded by six identical crystal faces.
Tabular grains are bounded by their faces in silver chloride emulsions but revert to non-tabular forms unless morphologically stabilized.
T grains parallel twin plane formation pose specific limitations, hue shifts etc. and those are trickier to workaround without sacrifice.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I don't like TMX, but love TMY. I also like FP4+ and Tri-X. I don't think it's tabular grain vs cubic grain. I think it's just one film formulation vs another. And even then the choice of developer for each film can drastically change how things look. To me it's all about the tonality and not the grain (since most of my prints are grainless at the size I make them).

 

[Chuck_P]

If it's a personal choice, there clearly must be some way of telling them apart other than pixel peeping or 30x40" prints. If there is no immediate difference, then why even bother distinguishing between them?

Portraits of woman is 120 TMY-2, girl is 35mm TMY, man is 120 Delta 400 (cropped 645), and boy is 120 Tri-X 400.
The pictures are all scans of prints on Ilford MGIV fiber, and they are at max quality level, not highly compressed.
Looking at the prints, at 11x14 size I can't tell them apart based on grain.

So much for my guess work..............

 

[BetterSense]

Silver chloride grains prefer to form regular cubes, bounded by six identical crystal faces.

You shouldn't anthropomorphize inanimate materials. They hate that.

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

Portraits of woman is 120 TMY-2, girl is 35mm TMY, man is 120 Delta 400 (cropped 645), and boy is 120 Tri-X 400.

That was enjoyable, thanks for posting the quiz, Thomas. I had the girl and the boy as Tri-X, so not quite right, either, though 35mm amongst MF was quite a trick.

In my prints, I can see the difference, in 4x5, especially between the older TMX, and TXT/320TXP, but only in smooth areas such as a plain sky. The grain appearance of TMX seems more geometrical when I peeping at a 12x16 print, while that of TXP seems more random. Having said that, I do not know if this is due to film, or, probably more likely, the way I have been processing it at the time. Bear in mind that I really only know HP5+ in LF, but I have been looking again at 320TXP recently. If Kodak film business remains, I might have a go at TMY some time. I have no idea why, I know it should be better to stick with one film, one dev, one xyz...

 

[georg16nik]

You shouldn't anthropomorphize inanimate materials. They hate that.

I am ashamed

 

[DREW WILEY]

Someone in addition to Anchell seems to be smoking something and blowing out the smoke. One
should be able to detect the differences between these respective films in a 5x7 print. That's almost
a 5x enlargement from 35mm. I can even see the difference between TMY and TMX at that magnification. Not only the differences in grain but in curve shape (esp at the toe) are significant
and affect not only real-world metering, but also the nature of shadow separation and micro-contrast above. Magnificent tonality can be achieved with any of them, once you understand them.
But that doesn't make them interchangable. Each has its distinct suite of characteristics, which
one can then bend by dev choice, exposure strategy, etc.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Someone in addition to Anchell seems to be smoking something and blowing out the smoke. One
should be able to detect the differences between these respective films in a 5x7 print. That's almost
a 5x enlargement from 35mm. I can even see the difference between TMY and TMX at that magnification. Not only the differences in grain but in curve shape (esp at the toe) are significant
and affect not only real-world metering, but also the nature of shadow separation and micro-contrast above. Magnificent tonality can be achieved with any of them, once you understand them.
But that doesn't make them interchangable. Each has its distinct suite of characteristics, which
one can then bend by dev choice, exposure strategy, etc.

You must be talking about me. I don't smoke much, but I like a good drink every now and then.

I think you analyze prints at a much deeper level than most, Drew. I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nope - wasn't specifically talking about you. The salt n' pepper graininess of Tri-X in most dev is
blatantly visible in even a 4x enlargment on textureless areas. And it has way more toe than either
version of TMax, which have a much longer straight line, but consequently need more accurate
metering. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Chuck_P]

How much toe is very dependent on the developer. TMX and d-76 1:1, straight as an arrow-----TMX and hc-110 1:63, upswept.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I consider 76 the upswept curve for TMX, and know how to do it much straighter in HC-110, though
admittedly with a tweak (added ingredient). But you get the straightest curve with TMRS developer.
This is what I use for color separation work. Regardless, the toe with any of these is considerably
less than with Tri-X, i.e., always higher contrast in the toe with either TMax film.

 

[Harry Lime]

If it's a personal choice, there clearly must be some way of telling them apart other than pixel peeping or 30x40" prints. If there is no immediate difference, then why even bother distinguishing between them?

Portraits of woman is 120 TMY-2, girl is 35mm TMY, man is 120 Delta 400 (cropped 645), and boy is 120 Tri-X 400.
The pictures are all scans of prints on Ilford MGIV fiber, and they are at max quality level, not highly compressed.
Looking at the prints, at 11x14 size I can't tell them apart based on grain.

You don't need to pixel peep on a 30x40 print, but you do need to be able to see the overall grain pattern and tonality. No one is going to make an accurate assessment between two black and white films stocks that are different, but not miles apart, from a low resolution jpeg that is a scan of a print that has been tinted either by digital or analogue means. Judging by the amount of posts you have to your credit you seem to be an experienced shooter, so I am surprised to hear that you don't see a difference in grain structure on an 11x14 print between TMY-2 and Tri-X, which has just about the most recognizable grain pattern in the industry. Sounds to me like you are just arguing your point in which case you are wasting my time and I'm done with this thread.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You don't need to pixel peep on a 30x409 print, but you do need to be able to see the overall grain pattern. No one is going to make an accurate assessment between two black and white films stocks that are different, but not miles apart, from a low resolution jpeg that is a scan of a print that has been tinted either by digital or analogue means. Judging by the amount of posts you have to your credit you seem to be an experienced shooter, so I am surprised to hear that you don't see a difference in grain structure on an 11x14 print between TMY-2 and Tri-X, which has just about the most recognizable grain pattern in the industry. Sounds to me like you are just arguing your point in which case you are wasting my time and I'm done with this thread.

Correct. I can't tell much difference between TMY-2 and Tri-X at normal print sizes. Do you honestly think I would say that unless I meant it?
It has to do with what I process the film in, the technique that I use, and how I work with both films to match them to the paper I print on. If I was using Rodinal or HC-110 the difference would be a lot more pronounced.

I am not here to waste anybody's time. That would be cruel.

 

[marenmcgowan]

Portraits of woman is 120 TMY-2, girl is 35mm TMY, man is 120 Delta 400 (cropped 645), and boy is 120 Tri-X 400.
The pictures are all scans of prints on Ilford MGIV fiber, and they are at max quality level, not highly compressed.
Looking at the prints, at 11x14 size I can't tell them apart based on grain.

I've always liked Tri-X better...I've also always held the opinion that Tri-X had a "grainier" and "contrastier" appearance. However, there are so many variables to consider: how is it processed, how is it exposed, what kind of lighting and so on. And, I think Thomas just proved that you cannot tell the difference...

 

[Roger Cole]

Correct. I can't tell much difference between TMY-2 and Tri-X at normal print sizes. Do you honestly think I would say that unless I meant it?
It has to do with what I process the film in, the technique that I use, and how I work with both films to match them to the paper I print on. If I was using Rodinal or HC-110 the difference would be a lot more pronounced.

I am not here to waste anybody's time. That would be cruel.

What do you develop them in? Xtol? Same developer for both?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What do you develop them in? Xtol? Same developer for both?

Replenished Xtol for some, Edwal 12 for others. It depends on lighting and film. TMY-2 receives less exposure and less agitation to mimic TX400 curve.

 

[markbarendt]

Replenished Xtol for some, Edwal 12 for others. It depends on lighting and film. TMY-2 receives less exposure and less agitation to mimic TX400 curve.

It is nice to see such a focus on the finished look and the adaptation of the "raw" materials to get there.

My hat is off to you Thomas.