Tri-X vs. T-Max

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It's all about the print, Mark. What else is there? Paper + developer has certain tonal characteristics, and if we don't learn how to work with our materials to fit those characteristics, then we miss a massive awful lot of potential. Trying to wrestle paper around negative characteristics is a huge compromise.

Thank you for the kind words, by the way. I have a great deal of respect for you.

 

[georg16nik]

Xtol is massaging the grain a lot.. Edwal 12 is not far behind.

 

[Arcturus]

I think that these types of film comparisons are like the "which premium lens is sharper" arguments that you mostly see with the digi crowd. While there are differences, they are so small or insignificant that the only way to tell them apart is to shoot test diagrams or pixel peep at 100,000x. Skill, subject, and circumstance have far more to do with how a photo looks than grain structure or characteristic curve.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Xtol is massaging the grain a lot.. Edwal 12 is not far behind.
View attachment 61536

I would characterize Edwal 12 to have finer grain than Xtol, even, and it's very sharp.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Edwal 12 has always been an interesting developer because it is fairly unique in its aim to produce extra-fine grain (lots of solvent action from both sulfite and PPD) with snappy contrast, so that you don't need to "overdevelop" for snap, which would otherwise destroy its extra fine grain properties. That differentiates it somewhat from the typical extra-fine grain D-23 variants like Microdol/Perceptol etc.

The developer was designed for the sometimes flat Midwest light. The developer characteristics are remarkable, and suit portrait photography very well indeed. The PPD gives a lower pH, which activates the glycin to a level not present in normal glycin developers, which is part of why it does what it does. It isn't like anything else out there.

 

[georg16nik]

.. Skill, subject, and circumstance have far more to do with how a photo looks than grain structure or characteristic curve.

Read the 1st post and note that its a technical thread posted in Darkroom -> B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry....
Crystallography, Chemistry and how Kodak tweaked (several times) a classic film like Tri-X is on topic.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Read the 1st post and note that its a technical thread posted in Darkroom -> B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry....
Crystallography, Chemistry and how Kodak tweaked (several times) a classic film like Tri-X is on topic.

Right, what does 'better' mean anyway? 'Technically better' usually means 'boring' to me. You know, resolution and all that. Yawn. In the end it's just the opinion of one photographer, and why should we care what Steve Anchell's tastes are? It's up to us to decide for ourselves what we like, what suits our work flow, and what helps us express ourselves in the most optimal way.

 

[georg16nik]

I would characterize Edwal 12 to have finer grain than Xtol, even, and it's very sharp.

Yep, I just said not far behind if You catch my drift
777 is another interesting soup.

 

[georg16nik]

Right, what does 'better' mean anyway? 'Technically better' usually means 'boring' to me. You know, resolution and all that. Yawn. In the end it's just the opinion of one photographer, and why should we care what Steve Anchell's tastes are? It's up to us to decide for ourselves what we like, what suits our work flow, and what helps us express ourselves in the most optimal way.

Well, I didn't wrote 'better' or 'Technically better' or mentioned resolution, hence its hard to answer Your question.
The OP asked about what Steve Anchell wrote about Tri-X and Tmax.. not what Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt think about Tri-X.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Well, I didn't wrote 'better' or 'Technically better' or mentioned resolution, hence its hard to answer Your question.
The OP asked about what Steve Anchell wrote about Tri-X and Tmax.. not what Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt think about Tri-X.

Yes, exactly. Those were my words.

I don't care what Steve Anchell says, is another way of putting it...

 

[georg16nik]

Yes, exactly. Those were my words.

I don't care what Steve Anchell says, is another way of putting it...

We are cool, no worries

 

[markbarendt]

It's all about the print, Mark. What else is there? Paper + developer has certain tonal characteristics, and if we don't learn how to work with our materials to fit those characteristics, then we miss a massive awful lot of potential. Trying to wrestle paper around negative characteristics is a huge compromise.

Thank you for the kind words, by the way. I have a great deal of respect for you.

It took me quite a while to wrap my head around "starting my thought at the print" and then working backwards though the systems to define my process, still in the midst of that process.

Before I started printing wet myself I just didn't get it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

All film are exactly the same. Here's how you prove it: smear vaseline over your enlarger lens, make
a print, crumple it up, then rephotograph it with your cell phone camera, then post it in a low res
JPEQ for a 2 inch square web evaluation. Scientific objectivity perfected! Also helps if you smear
vaseline over your own eyeballs.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

All film are exactly the same. Here's how you prove it: smear vaseline over your enlarger lens, make
a print, crumple it up, then rephotograph it with your cell phone camera, then post it in a low res
JPEQ for a 2 inch square web evaluation. Scientific objectivity perfected! Also helps if you smear
vaseline over your own eyeballs.

Nope, but it is possible to make TMax and Tri-X both fit Ilford MGIV / replenished LPD with highly similar print tonality as an outcome. No vaseline needed. Just some cheerful joy, and a little bit of practice.

 

[Arcturus]

Read the 1st post and note that its a technical thread posted in Darkroom -> B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry....
Crystallography, Chemistry and how Kodak tweaked (several times) a classic film like Tri-X is on topic.

I didn't say anything was off topic, I'm just saying that the type of 400 iso film used has such a small effect on the final image as compared to other variables that it barely warrants a second thought. I think Steve Anchell's opinions on Tmax are unwarranted since the two films in question are more similar than they are different. Differences do exist, but unless you know what to look for you wouldn't notice. If there were big differences between the two, or other 400 iso films for that matter then we wouldn’t be having these discussions with such wildly varying opinions.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... well, we now do have a testimonial that vaseline over the eyeballs works ...

 

[Richard Jepsen]

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.

I noticed the same in limited shooting with new T-Max 400. This characteristic, as a starting point for me, suggests I rate new -135 T-Max 400 at 320, use no light yellow filter, and gain speed for indoor portraits. Those small format images are likely to have a MF smooth look in 5x7 prints. I gain a stop on Tri-X and retain shadow contrast; at least I hope.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I noticed the same in limited shooting with new T-Max 400. This characteristic, as a starting point for me, suggests I rate new -135 T-Max 400 at 320, use no light yellow filter, and gain speed for indoor portraits. Those small format images are likely to have a MF smooth look in 5x7 prints. I gain a stop on Tri-X and retain shadow contrast; at least I hope.

Either you use it to gain shadow contrast, or use it for some other purpose. It's great to have versatile tools.

 

[Vaughn]

Works for me too and it starts at the original scene. Imagine the desired outcome and think like the paper. That guides everything from camera filters to exposure, developer/development routine and on and on to the final print.

That is what makes many of the alt processes an interesting (and IMO, worthwhile) experience. The 'paper' becomes one of the variables. I can craft a 'paper' (in my case carbon tissue) to fit a negative, within limitations of the material, of course. This is just an extension of what you wrote...instead of "...thinking like the paper", one thinks like the process. And the image and process (both film and printing) are all one.

 

[Roger Cole]

Edwal 12 has always been an interesting developer because it is fairly unique in its aim to produce extra-fine grain (lots of solvent action from both sulfite and PPD) with snappy contrast, so that you don't need to "overdevelop" for snap, which would otherwise destroy its extra fine grain properties. That differentiates it somewhat from the typical extra-fine grain D-23 variants like Microdol/Perceptol etc.

Where do you get Edwal 12? Neither Freestyle nor Adorama nor B&H have it. Photographer's Formulary has something they say is the same, but it's pretty expensive - $15 a liter with a claimed shelf life of 2 months. I did find a mix it yourself formula on Digital Truth.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Where do you get Edwal 12? Neither Freestyle nor Adorama nor B&H have it. Photographer's Formulary has something they say is the same, but it's pretty expensive - $15 a liter with a claimed shelf life of 2 months. I did find a mix it yourself formula on Digital Truth.

Developer 12 from Formulary, or mix yourself. B&H sells it as drop ship.

It lasts about a year if kept in those snazzy wine bladders.

 

[Roger Cole]

Yeah, and I see 1 litre is $14.95 while 2 is only $19.95

OTOH, I rarely shoot black and white in 35mm anymore and, when I do, it's usually in low light with TMZ, soon to be D3200. Grain isn't much of an issue for my medium format and not at all for my 4x5, so I'm not sure I need to experiment with yet another developer. But it's good to know anyway.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

That Edwal 12 seems excellent. Never tried. I think I'm going to

When TMX & TMY came out I tried, didn't like it at all and it was over. I kept shooting TRI-X / TXP till now.
It is a given that with proper test and with use you get excellent results with TM. And match as seen on Thomas examples the 2 film for printing.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yeah, and I see 1 litre is $14.95 while 2 is only $19.95

OTOH, I rarely shoot black and white in 35mm anymore and, when I do, it's usually in low light with TMZ, soon to be D3200. Grain isn't much of an issue for my medium format and not at all for my 4x5, so I'm not sure I need to experiment with yet another developer. But it's good to know anyway.

Grain is not the main reason for using this developer. It's all about tonality. It's great with Delta 3200, for example, where with most developers you have to kick it far down the road and develop for a long time to build enough contrast to make a neg that fits the process.
Edwal 12 helps here by adding great intensity in the highlights, lessening the demand for really long dev times.

If you don't like the price of Edwal 12, Edwal 10 has almost identical tonality, but without the ultra fine grain. Recipe for it is easily found with a quick search.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That Edwal 12 seems excellent. Never tried. I think I'm going to

When TMX & TMY came out I tried, didn't like it at all and it was over. I kept shooting TRI-X / TXP till now.
It is a given that with proper test and with use you get excellent results with TM. And match as seen on Thomas examples the 2 film for printing.

It's really wonderful, G. But with your skill and technique I doubt you'll ever NEED Edwal 12.