Tri-X vs. T-Max

[AndreasT]

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."
Now I am sure that the new Tri-X is more similar to T-Max than the original Tri-X.
I would just like to hear a few viewpoints of others regarding this.

 

[Chuck_P]

I like Anchell, but he might be hard pressed to convince John Sexton of that claim; I think it boils down to what the photographer can do with the film in his process. I started out with TMX with my move to 4x5 and have recently made a switch to TXP, so far, for myself, I like what I have been able to do with TXP better. My troubles with TMX are purely on me, IMO.

 

[BetterSense]

"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."

I don't know a better word to describe this except "BS".

I'm not saying he's wrong, that would be dignifying. He's so wrong he's not even wrong.

 

[markbarendt]

Like us, each film has a personality of sorts.

Sometimes we get along well with one but not another, both human and film.

The reasons we give for not getting along aren't always rational or even based in reality.

I can say that I have used both films and both were, just fine thank you.

 

[damonff]

Tri-X is my enemy. Some love it. I have shot many films, and have used many developers. I have had great success. My failures always end up on Tri-X. I have few shots with Tri-X that I love. Many will disagree. I prefer TMAX 400.

 

[Tim Gray]

What they said. Tri-X is a great film, as is T-Max. Try them both and figure out which you like the most.

 

[psychfunk]

I've just seen the results from my first ever roll of TMAX 400 (old one), processed in HC-110. I like it, but IMO it's nothing special. The grain neither adds character to the image nor annoys me or gets in the way. The apparent tonal range is excellent though.

I'm happy enough with it that I can use it up - a friend gave me around 15 expired rolls. I'm afraid I'm not experienced with Tri-X, but I hear it's close to HP5+, and I love that too.

Also, a thing that I found useful: when I was looking up the Kodak sheets for the development times, I saw that for HC-110 (B), it's recommended to expose TMAX 400 (TMY 5053) at EI320 rather than at 400. Just thought I'd point that out in case you're a HC-110 fan

 

[eddie]

I sort of remember when T-Max was first introduced (early 80's?). I was in school, and a bunch of us photo majors gave it a whirl. Initially (at least in 4x5) most of us had a hard time working with it. Our results were inconsistent, at least with the developers we were using. Since then, though, I've found it to be a fine film, and am still pissed off they discontinued it in Readyloads.

In truth, sometimes I think "old-timers" will naturally have a bias towards earlier films (at least at first). They learned on them, became proficient with them, and developed an expectation of what a print should look like. When a new film doesn't deliver the same look, it's natural for them (and I include myself based on my early experience) to think it's not as good.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I've done of my very best work on Tmax 100 and Tmax 400. I like Tri-X too. I've honestly never found a film that I could not get gorgeous tonality from once I experimented enough with it. I agree with the poster who said Anchell's books are marred by his silly bias against these great films.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Keep in mind as well when T-max was introduced many people tried it and tested it and didn't like it forever and ever closed book. In my experience those who already had a a closer tolerance method and style of negative work seem to have a more favorable view of it. Those workers who had 'looser tolerances' got more variation on the results. My first few rolls were not very good, and it did take me a bit to really understand and work with the film. In those days I was shooting for a newpaper and they switched from Tri-X to T-max so you could imagine there was a bit of grumbling from the old timers. The best advice I got was from John Sexton, who advised to shoot at box speed and try to nail the best exposure and process D-76 1:1 with not too much agitation. I had more consistent negs after I learned T-max like that, and when I started switching developers I had a better feel for the film.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have used both. Both are great, but I lean toward T-max.

Jeff

 

[MDR]

The Question is which Tmax and which Tri-X. They are both great films if you want super smooth tones with very little grain for the speed Tmax is your thing. If you want the classical look meaning more grit but in fact less dynamic range than use an older tri-x the new trix has less grain than its predecessor but is still a great film. It basically comes down to personal preference.

Dominik

 

[darkosaric]

I like TriX with Rodinal. Before I used Tmax 400 in Tmax developer and Rodinal - it has much finer grain than TriX, but somehow it is not for me. Good thing is that we have both .

 

[RalphLambrecht]

i too would take john sexton's word for it, but keep in mind that he is experienced enough to get the best ou of any film.

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

The best advice I got was from John Sexton, who advised to shoot at box speed and try to nail the best exposure and process D-76 1:1 with not too much agitation. I had more consistent negs after I learned T-max like that, and when I started switching developers I had a better feel for the film.

I wonder if that advice was somehow specific to your own work or, to a particular application. The general advice that I heard John Sexton give, which he also outlines in his handouts, is to do a speed test, however, he lists his own results, and he does not seem to use TMax at box speed, but at lower speeds, which are dependent on the required contrast adjustment through ZS developing time. Also, he agitates vigorously by hand, or uses a Jobo, except when aiming for extreme contrast contraction.

And to answer OP, both films are great, with a fairly different look. TMax, to me, may be a tad more perfect, technically speaking, while TXP and HP5+ for that matter, a little more old-fashioned. I like TMax in MF and HP5+ in LF. Bear in mind, however, that I am more familiar with HP5+.

 

[markbarendt]

What I find about shooting at box speed and developing normally (with most any films) is that it provides high quality, is normally very forgiving of errors, and gives a great place to decide what I might like different.

 

[ChuckP]

Don't forget that for sheet film Tri-X and Tmax are very different films. Tri-x has that long toe steep highlight curve and Tmax is straighter. To me Tri-x sheet film easily produces a more dramatic look. But you don't always want that.

 

[jp498]

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.

 

[brian steinberger]

This is more of a personal thing. I've used both films alot, and my preference is for Tri-x, simply because it's very forgiving and more importantly, it's grainier. I shoot MF and prefer the grain. If I shot 35mm my preference may differ. Both are great films, but to me Tri-x has a bit more character.

 

[markbarendt]

ChuckP makes a good point we should be careful to differentiate between TXP 320 and TX.

Yep, different.

All three films in thought here are great though. Not a slacker in the bunch.

 

[AndreasT]

Wow a lot of responce. I find the claim of Anchell very strong. For him his saying is correct I suppose.
I have never used Tri-X. I use TMax 400 for my work in 35mm as well as 4x5. I test all of my films with step wedges and all that to see how a film is with my developer. I personally prefer the straightness of the curves which I see with "modern" films over that of "classical" films. I suppose to see "microscopic
variations in contrast" you need a microscope in sorts.
The general look and feel of a film of course in combination with a certain paper should fit.
There are a lot of claims and thoughts out there, some true some only in part.
Hopefully we with have both films and all others for a long time to keep everybody happy and the discussions going.

 

[nworth]

TMY has (slightly) finer grain than TX, but I like the look of TX better. Anchell may be on to something, or maybe not. I also liked the look of TMX much more than PX, and TMX is still my favorite 100 speed class film.

 

[Jerevan]

Any opinion about a certain film says more about the photographer using it, than about the film itself.

 

[lxdude]

I don't know a better word to describe this except "BS".

I'm not saying he's wrong, that would be dignifying. He's so wrong he's not even wrong.

I can't even call BS, because I don't even understand it.

I mean I understand it, but... I don't understand it. Rounded pebble shape means better microcontrast- how?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think we should just rejoice in the fact that both versions of Tri-X as well as TMax 400 are available to us today. All of them are amazing films, each with some individual strengths. The day either of them become unavailable will be a sad day.

Having used both TX400 and TMY/TMY-2 a fair bit I have to say I often need to look at the negative itself to tell what film it was unless I remember. In using them I find Tri-X 400 is more forgiving in processing, in that it reacts to processing alterations slower, and TMY-2 is more forgiving in exposure in that it records a longer brightness range, but it reacts much quicker to processing changes, so it might be a little bit more difficult to handle in the darkroom. Tri-X has lower resolution and more grain, for better or worse (depending on what you want). But other than that I find that they are more similar than they are different and it's easy to use both films to make the type of negative that my paper likes, and to me when I get the print just right, the rest becomes academic and no longer even interests me.