Tri-X

[Richard S. (rich815)]

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2743

 

[JRoosa]

You scared me. I thought it might be a news article about it being discontinued.

Pfew.

J.

 

[NB23]

... But Tri-X changed so much within its lifespan which makes this article useless as far as the "Magic" of Tri-X goes.

It's more about an accepted and blindly followed standard versus anything else, really.

I long for the Tri-X of the 80s. They somewhat lost me when they started the TX400 VS. 400TX Bullsheet, where one of them is a "new and better" version then the other. Pathetic.

 

[snapguy]

poor

Methinks "a poor workman blames his tools" goes in just about here. Anybody who thinks a mass market product is being manufactured just for him personally and no company has the right to alter same without a note from his desk is taking Twitdom to a high new level. Get a grip.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Good article

Jeff

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Yes, while Tri-x has changed a few times it has remained a classic throughout and always held its basic character. Even then it was not hard to dial in and get consistent results with a basic signature inline with its reputation.

 

[darkosaric]

This one is funny:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2751

 

[Nuff]

This one is funny:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2751

The photo looks very grey, it must have been shot on TMAX. I will take the contrasty mess of TriX and stick to blacks and whites.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I long for the Tri-X of the 80s. They somewhat lost me when they started the TX400 VS. 400TX Bullsheet, where one of them is a "new and better" version then the other. Pathetic.

When Kodak moved all their film coating to a single new facility they changed the formulation of Tri-X and their other films to include new technologies. In order to make this dramatic change obvious to the user they changed the name of the film to 400TX. The new film is very fine grained probably the finest grained 400 speed film on the market. This is a new film and requires the user to re-familiarized to it. If you want the grain of the old film then try Ilford HP-5+.

 

[Hatchetman]

Never shot the old stuff, but 400TX is terrific IMO.

 

[zehner21]

When Kodak moved all their film coating to a single new facility they changed the formulation of Tri-X and their other films to include new technologies. In order to make this dramatic change obvious to the user they changed the name of the film to 400TX. The new film is very fine grained probably the finest grained 400 speed film on the market. This is a new film and requires the user to re-familiarized to it. If you want the grain of the old film then try Ilford HP-5+.

Is it correct to say that the old Tri-X had grain similar to the actual HP5+?

 

[MDR]

Tri-X in all it's version was/is a great film Tri-X pro 320 being my favourite version of that film. The guy in the SS complainig about tri-x contrast is more than funny in fact it seems that he never heard of Tri-X in Microdol which is pretty fine grained and looses some contrast. I also remember Bob Shell advice in Shutterbug for the "Film Noir Look" Tri-X @ 640 developed in Microdol-X. Tri-X is just about one of the most versatile films there is.

Zehner the answer is no HP5+ is less grainy than the older Tri-X (80's), HP5 isn't even close in the look it gives to Tri-X. HP5+ has more midtones and is less inherently contrasty than Tri-X. If you want the grain and steeper contrast of really old Tri-X (60's) Fomapan 400 is your Film.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Tri-X is great for what I do. That has not changed in the more than 3 decades I've used it. What I have seen is slow and gradual improvements in graininess, but with the same classic curve and look. During those years, finer grain was widely considered a goal and a desirable feature. At the time of the change Gerald C Koch mentioned, I compared the last of my existing TX with the new. It seemed to me to clearly be a better film, though the difference is slight. I've not had to change my developers or times noticeably in all those years, though Xtol has become my favored developer since its introduction. Acufine, Diafine, and D76 still work great with it.

I'm amazed anybody who ever liked Tri-X can find anything to complain about, except the price of course! Price does have me experimenting more with HP5 Plus and it is another great film, and probably does have a more classic, very slightly grainier, look for those who want it. It is astonishing the wealth of great film choices we are blessed with today.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Is it correct to say that the old Tri-X had grain similar to the actual HP5+?

HP5+ is grainer than 400TX and in that respect is closer to the old Tri-X. Other than that I was not equating the two films. I recommended HP5+ to those that want more grain than the new 400TX provides. In my experience HP5+ has always been grainier than Tri-X old or new.

 

[john_s]

HP5+ is grainer than 400TX and in that respect is closer to the old Tri-X. Other than that I was not equating the two films. I recommended HP5+ to those that want more grain than the new 400TX provides. In my experience HP5+ has always been grainier than Tri-X old or new.

If one wanted the grain of older Tri-X by using HP5+, is there a developer that might give a more similar look? Maybe HC-110 not too dilute?

 

[Pat Erson]

I long for the Tri-X of the 80s. They somewhat lost me when they started the TX400 VS. 400TX Bullsheet, where one of them is a "new and better" version than the other. Pathetic.

Agreed to the nth degree... "Something fell" (to quote a genius named Dave Sim) when "400TX" replaced "5063 TX" on my contact sheets around 2005...

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If one wanted the grain of older Tri-X by using HP5+, is there a developer that might give a more similar look? Maybe HC-110 not too dilute?

Hard to say as I have never been a big user of HP5+. Two developers come to mind; Perceptol for less grain and Rodinal for more grain then HC-110 or D-76.

 

[NB23]

Is it correct to say that the old Tri-X had grain similar to the actual HP5+?

NO.

Lol.

 

[NB23]

You wanna get close to old Tri-X? Try Kentmere 400. HP5 is very, very fine grained. Just as today's Tri-X.

 

[jim appleyard]

If one wanted the grain of older Tri-X by using HP5+, is there a developer that might give a more similar look? Maybe HC-110 not too dilute?

Rodinal or Dektol.

 

[dynachrome]

When Tri-X was last changed I found it had finer grain than TMY. This difference lasted until TMY2 was introduced. While Microdol-X and Perceptol did offer finer grain they did so at the cost of speed loss and sharpness loss. This is with the developers undiluted. If the developer got diluted 1:3 the speed came back to normal but the grain looked like what you would get with D-76 1:1. I first tested the current version of Tri-X with a Canon F-1 using a 35/2 FD SSC (1st version). The film and the lens gave very sharp results. I was probably using HC-110 Dil. B for those results. HP5+ is not as fine grained as Tri-X but is still very good and looks fine in 120 size.

 

[Roger Cole]

Methinks "a poor workman blames his tools" goes in just about here. Anybody who thinks a mass market product is being manufactured just for him personally and no company has the right to alter same without a note from his desk is taking Twitdom to a high new level. Get a grip.

Wow. Pleasant day to you too.

I did not see ANYONE posting above this saying anything remotely like this. Thanks for the strawman argument. I did say someone saying, essence and to paraphrase, that he preferred the older versions of Tri-X and that it changed so much over the years that it's not fair to talk about "Tri-X" as if it's one monolithic film over decades but more of a brand. I happen to at least somewhat agree with that. I like the new film fine, but it seems to share some of the loss of speed under tungsten light that I've always found with TMY and I need to shoot it at 1000 under tungsten with Diafine, versus 1600 still being good by daylight. But it is still a great film.

No one is foolish enough to think Kodak makes it only for them. Where the heck did you even get that impression anyway??

 

[digital&film]

This one is funny:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/2751

"There, I said it. You guys are a bunch of romantics. Tri-X can kiss my ass."

 

[Mark Crabtree]

I made some pictures on TX in grim lighting conditions last night. I wasn't really sure I was getting enough light for usable exposures, but 8' @ 72 degrees in Acufine appears to have done even a bit better than I expected. I'm anxious to make some prints. Also anxious to do some comparison with HP5 Plus under similar conditions. Admittedly, the pro digi shooters were banging away without a problem. I should ask what EI they were using.

TX has been a wonderful film for many decades; it isn't the same film as when it started and I'm glad for the improvements.

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

I'm going to disagree with one of the previous posters in that I would say the current HP5+ is more like the previous version of TX than not. Personally I like HP5+ more for street and not so much for portraits (in 35mm). Many say that HP5+ has a better mid-tone gradation than TX, but I think this is because the true speed of HP5+ is slightly slower than the current TX, so the mid-tones are shoved slightly lower down the curve. I think if you dial in your personal development methods, you can produce an essentially identical curve with both films, but HP5+ will have slightly higher grain in the identical developer.

The current version of TX is so close to TMY that the differences are now, if not minimal, then closer than they used to be. This isn't due to any changes to TMY (although it has changed too), but due to the improvements in TX. They are now both so good that it is almost unnecessary to carry a 100 speed film unless needed for larger aperture or other considerations.