Tri-X: What situations, if any, demand an alternative? (35mm)

Just depends on the look you want. I normally have TMX100 in my 6X9 cameras or roll film backs. But once in awhile I want some more deliberate grain and a different kind of shadow curve, so I'll substitute TX instead. But it doesn't enlarge as much before something starts looking funky to my eye. To me, Delta 3200 (shot at 800) is a more interesting option.

I strategize 35 mm shots differently, where I often want a distinctly different film. Old school Tri-X did wonderful things for journalistic snapshots back in the day, grain n' all. But the current product seems different.

I haven't bothered with any kind of microscopy. Just half an hour ago I was looking at today's fascinating pond sample which I brought back in a 35mm canister while out shooting with the 4x5. But it's a so-so student level microscope which my wife picked up for free, which I jerry-rigged for dark field. If it were one of those amazing Zeiss research scopes like I used back in my college Microbiology courses, that would be a whole different story, and I would want to rig it up for a vac sheet film holder. But I'm just trying to have a little fun and save my limited money for other things.

snusmumriken said:

But are you talking about 35mm? I thought you were a MF guy.

Click to expand...

I prefer medium format and usually travel with it, but if I have to travel light or will not have the luxury to dwell at will when I would like, I will take 35mm.

Sirius Glass said:

I prefer medium format and usually travel with it, but if I have to travel light or will not have the luxury to dwell at will when I would like, I will take 35mm.

Click to expand...

My apologies

loccdor said:

Ilford HP5+ is a very respectable film but it has a different look than Tri-X. To me, it makes things look more nostalgic and melancholy.

Click to expand...

It might be that most of the people who make HP5+ are Mancunians who support either Manchester City or United so it's understandable why that film now makes thing look melancholy and nostalgic

It's largely a joke for those who follow English Premier League football - that's the round ball game over here

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

It might be that most of the people who make HP5+ are Mancunians who support either Manchester City or United so it's understandable why that film now makes thing look melancholy and nostalgic

It's largely a joke for those who follow English Premier League football - that's the round ball game over here

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Melancholy and nostalgic is the state of the nation in general, isn’t it?

snusmumriken said:

My apologies

Click to expand...

None needed.

Tri-X is such a versatile film that I consider it to be good enough for most B&W shooting. However, there are situations where certain other films would be better. FP4 on sunny days, Pan F for landscapes, or T-MAX for extra sharpness, etc. If you've got a specific type of shot in mind, you might load one of the aforementioned films, but if you just want a film that can cover almost any situation you might encounter, then Tri-X has got you covered. As for the age-old Tri-X/HP5 debate, they're just different takes on the same concept. They're both really good films to use. Tri-X is higher contrast out of the gate, so you don't need to fiddle with it to get striking images. HP5 is definitely flatter, but that can be a major benefit when adjusting things either during scanning or printing. Back in the day, lower contrast was preferred because it meant that you had more control over what you got in the final image.

Modern 4x5 trix is truly a great film
Looks beautiful in pyro and correlates so well with my handmade POP PAPER
So is tmy400 but i cant develop it by inspection

multivoiced said:

I recently shot a couple rolls of 400TX and enjoyed the results. I don't think I would ever complain about a black and while film photograph looking too "gritty". Reading around the forum, I noticed that people sometimes compare this Kodak film to CineStill's BwXX and another from Ilford (HP5 plus, I believe).

Are there common situations in which a 35mm photographer should consider skipping Tri-X in favor of something similar but more suitable for that situation?

Click to expand...

Only if you need finer grain. You can use a slower film or a tabular-shaped grain film if you need finer grain.