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

[multivoiced]

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?

 

[Paul Howell]

CineStill and other house brand films are rebranded Kodak double X a movie film. It is an older emulsion and has some grain to it. Foma 400 if shot at box speed and developed in a developer that has less sliver solvents like Rodinal or FX, DDX it can be somewhat grainy. Other option is Tmax or Delta 3200 Then there is Bergger Panco in 35mm I found to have a lot of grain, not sure if it is avialable in the U.S.

 

[MattKing]

All films have their inherent characteristics - grain, shape of curve, spectral response, etc.
If you are familiar with those characteristics, and you have visualized a result, you can pick a film that best serves that visualization.

 

[Milpool]

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?

Not really, unless you want finer grain.

 

[snusmumriken]

1. Poverty. Here in the UK, Tri-X is uncompetitive.

2. Aesthetics. Other films have their own look which can be what the photographer wants.

3. Fine grain. Tri-X is nice and sharp, but its grain size is just too big for subjects requiring fine detail, such as landscapes.

BTW, you don’t mention how you are viewing your Tri-X photos? Small prints, large prints, negative scans … ?

 

[koraks]

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).

Much of this discussion AFAIK revolves around the eternal search for a favorable compromise between price and (experiences/subjective) product quality. Keep also in mind that distribution varies across the world, making e.g. Ilford around 30% cheaper here in mainland EU than TriX, while it's pretty much the other way around in the US. Double-X is basically budget proposition and does not necessarily offer anything technically/objectively superior to TriX or HP5+ (let alone TMY2 or Delta 400). Subjective differences can of course play a role, although I've not seen many people express a preference for DoubleX based on product quality arguments alone (i.e. price seems to always be a factor).

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?

If you're happy with what you've got, there's no reason to skip anything, really. I think many people (including myself) like to get a taste of the grass on the other side once in a while to sample its greenness. Personally, I always find confirmation of what I can read in other people's experiences, datasheets etc. - no surprises.

If you're looking for an objective step ahead, a T- or Delta-grained film is arguably better - but that's not to say you will necessarily like it better. Something like TMY2 is noticeably finer-grained than TX and has less of a toe, so it's quite linear even in the deepest shadows. Again, whether such differences are relevant or preferable to you is very subjective.

PS: speaking for myself, my fussing over technical matters and experimentation with materials has always had far less of an influence in my actual photography than things like reflection, practice, discussing images with others etc.

 

[loccdor]

Tri-X has one of the best aesthetic renderings of any film. I don't find the grain to be very intense, even in 35mm, as long as it is fresh and not developed with Rodinal. It really does get a lot worse with expiration though.

Landscapes in medium format are fine with it.

Double-X has a very similar look to Tri-X, just with a little less grain. It's being sold for more money than Tri-X most places, which would cause me to prefer Tri-X at this time. They're so close that I'd just go with whatever's cheaper.

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.

Fomapan 400 has backing paper problems in 120 but it's nice in 35mm when you want a lower contrast, but grainy, look. I particularly like it for foggy, stormy, rainy scenes.

 

[Saganich]

I can't think of any. I routinely shoot in full sunlight then in a dark bar on same roll and TriX can manage all of it very well. Sometimes I wish I had an ND filter in the full sun, but that's not the film's fault.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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?

I see no reason to skip Tri-X. I get good consistent results from Tri-X that I can depend on. On the other hand, Tri-X does not work well in the infrared range and for that I use Rollei IR 400.

 

[snusmumriken]

I see no reason to skip Tri-X. I get good consistent results from Tri-X that I can depend on.

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

 

[cliveh]

Tri-X is too fast for general purpose use. FP4 will give you finer grain and more detail at 35mm format. Just my opinion.

 

[Craig]

Tri X is the only film that I have ever had reticulate, so I'm a bit gunshy about using it again.

I processed it in a Paterson tank along with a roll of HP5, and the HP5 was perfect, so I don't think it was my processing technique. Kodak being substantially more expensive than Ilford doesn't give me any reason to try it again either.

 

[GregY]

Tri X is the only film that I have ever had reticulate, so I'm a bit gunshy about using it again.

I processed it in a Paterson tank along with a roll of HP5, and the HP5 was perfect, so I don't think it was my processing technique. Kodak being substantially more expensive than Ilford doesn't give me any reason to try it again either.

Craig, we each have different experiences. I've used TriX in 35 to 8x10 and always preferred the results to anything i did with HP5.
Given the current N American situation i'm sticking w mostly FP4 & Delta 100....for anything faster I guess i'll try D400. I've never had any film reticulate except when the temperature was too high. I find Tri-X (even in 35mm) to be a beautiful film.

 

[cerber0s]

Personally I prefer TMax to TriX and HP5. I find HP5 to be amazingly forgiving when it comes to exposure latitude, but I find it a bit flat. TriX has its uses, but is a bit gritty. TMax however just looks beautiful to me with pleasing contrast and sharpness. I haven't shot TMax as much as I have HP5, and never at anything other than box speed, so I don't know how it behaves compares in that regard. What was the question again?

 

[Craig]

Greg,

Do you have a favourite way to use HP5? EI, developer, processing technique (Tank, tray, tubes etc)? I still use HP5, especially when I need the speed for large format and I rarely seem to get results that look as good as Delta 100 in Xtol.

I usually follow the Ilford guidelines (or Kodak times for Xtol) and process in a Jobo.

 

[Paul Howell]

For speed, Tmax 400, to 800 no additional time, to 1600 a true 1 stop push. For resolution at 200 LPM Tmax 100. I still use Tmax 400 and 100 in 120 and 35mm when traveling, Tmax in sheet film is just too expensive so I use Foma 400 or 100, but will a try a box of PF4.

 

[cerber0s]

For speed, Tmax 400, to 800 no additional time, to 1600 a true 1 stop push. For resolution at 200 LPM Tmax 100. I still use Tmax 400 and 100 in 120 and 35mm when traveling, Tmax in sheet film is just too expensive so I use Foma 400 or 100, but will a try a box of PF4.

Foma 100 is a fantastic film IME.

 

[BHuij]

It's just personal preference, as with most factors that go into choosing a film to use.

I have no beef with TriX, but it's not significantly different from HP5+ in my eyes, and since I buy most of my B&W 35mm film in 100' bulk rolls, I went with HP5+ due to lower cost, and have been using it happily for years.

Helps that I slightly prefer Delta 100 to TMX, and that Kodak no longer has a real direct equivalent to FP4+ (probably my favorite B&W film of all time), since PlusX got discontinued. I can stick to just one brand for all my B&W needs.

 

[GregY]

Greg,

Do you have a favourite way to use HP5? EI, developer, processing technique (Tank, tray, tubes etc)? I still use HP5, especially when I need the speed for large format and I rarely seem to get results that look as good as Delta 100 in Xtol.

I usually follow the Ilford guidelines (or Kodak times for Xtol) and process in a Jobo.

I have a little HP5 in the fridge.... but much more TMX/TMY-2/Tri-X/FP4. For decades now i've been using PMK & then Pyrocat. Most times i expose the films at 320 (80 for FP4). .....Tanks for 35/120 and trays for 4x5/5x7/4x10/8x10 (though i don't use 4x10/8x10 anymore). I'll likely be trying Delta 400...& see if i get more favourable results than HP5.

 

[chuckroast]

I have a little HP5 in the fridge.... but much more TMX/TMY-2/Tri-X/FP4. For decades now i've been using PMK & then Pyrocat. Most times i expose the films at 320 (80 for FP4). .....Tanks for 35/120 and trays for 4x5/5x7/4x10/8x10 (though i don't use 4x10/8x10 anymore). I'll likely be trying Delta 400...& see if i get more favourable results than HP5.

PMK is lovely for larger formats but too gritty for my tastes for 35mm.

 

[GregY]

PMK is lovely for larger formats but too gritty for my tastes for 35mm.

CR I switched over to Pyrocat for everything a few years ago, when I was using PMK i didn't shoot 35....only MF/LF

 

[chuckroast]

CR I switched over to Pyrocat for everything a few years ago, when I was using PMK i didn't shoot 35....only MF/LF

I use Pcat-HDC extensively, but still keep PMK around for the bigger formats. I've never found anything that gives such well defined edges around clouds.

 

[Paul Howell]

Foma 100 is a fantastic film IME.

I usally shoot Foma 400 for the speed but just bought a box of 4X5 Foma 100. I use Foma in 35mm for my walk around film, in Diafine i can shoot 400. 100 I can shoot at 100 in Acufine.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What situations if any demand Tri-X? That's the flip side of the coin. If you like it's look, you don't need any other justification. But it's just one of many choices, most of them more modern.

 

[JensH]

What situations if any demand Tri-X? That's the flip side of the coin. If you like it's look, you don't need any other justification. But it's just one of many choices, most of them more modern.

Hi Drew,

I use both, TX and TMY-2 in 120.
Can't say exactly why, but I like TX from old (pre-war, non coated glass) cameras better than TMY-2. Even as TMY-2 is the technical better film.
Same for FP4Plus on the old microscope camera (9x12cm, 6x9cm)...

With modern (post 1980, coated optics) cameras I mostly take TMY-2 and TMX.

Or does it simply feel wrong for me to put a T/Delta/Sigma crystal film into a 1913 to 193x camera?!

Greetings
Jens