TXP 320 is gone. What now?

[vdonovan]

Kodak TXP 320, developed in XTOL 1:1, was my favorite film for portraiture but it has been discontinued!

I know this question is entirely subjective, but for you other TXP users out there, have you found a good replacement film/developer combo (in 120)? I guess I'm looking for a great tonal range, not much grain, and decent speed, though speed's not a big priority.

I know I'm going to have to do a lot of my own testing, but I would love to hear other's favorites so I can use them as a starting point.

Here's an example of my work with TXP:

 

[mike c]

vdonovan,
TXP is or was my most used film in 220,but I believe it still available in 120. All ways used HC110 to develop it. How ever ,starting to use TMAX 100 120,have had good luck with it in 4X5 sheet film,all so developed in HC110,Heard that Xtol does a better job with Tmax 100 and will try that.
Mike

 

[Kevin Kehler]

vdonovan,
TXP is or was my most used film in 220,but I believe it still available in 120.
Mike

Sorry Mike but 120 is gone as well. There is sheet film still available and while Kodak says they are firmly committed to the sheet film, I highly doubt they will do a production run just for sheet film; if they are going to run 6000 feet to make sheet, why wouldn't you run 10000 feet and make 120 as well? In other words, while they are not yet saying it, they probably have enough sheet film stored to last for X amount of time and once that is used, then TXP in sheet is gone as well.

As to what to do, I am trying to use Tri-X 400 with D-76 and having moderate success. I prefer a more traditional grain (so T-Max and Delta are out for me) but can't yet get the tonality I preferred in TXP to occur in Tri-X. Tri-X and HC-110 don't get along with in my tank: too much grain and too much contrast without smooth tones. I should say all of my films except TXP are Ilford but again, I have never had success with HP5+, although I might give it another go.

 

[Athiril]

120 is available fresh on ebay still, if you really like this film, stock up.

 

[mike c]

HOLY COW,I thought it was still there in 120,what do I do now?

 

[Kevin Kehler]

Buy what you can from whoever you can and start experimenting with something new. I bought as much as I could, even sending my brother in another province to get me more from other stores. Little ashamed to say this, but I bounced the rent check so I could get more. Whatever is left online is whatever is left in the world, as they are not making more and not everyone is completely cleaned out (they soon will be).

 

[Athiril]

HOLY COW,I thought it was still there in 120,what do I do now?

Oops, and looks like the last fresh lot on ebay is gone, I was going to consider getting some to try out too. Oh well.

Try Plus-X?


Otherwise, invest in a 4x5" camera, they can be had cheap.. get a lens with pc-sync and you're set for portraits.

 

[mike c]

I'v already got a 4x5,and 5x7 but love using my Hassy with the 220 back and TXP with HC.(sounds like a country western song,"I've got the TXP blues")

 

[Athiril]

Maybe if you join forces and internet protest Kodak will bring it back.. like Fuji with Velvia 50.

 

[mike c]

" I'm Crying the Blues to You,Kodak"

 

[fschifano]

...I highly doubt they will do a production run just for sheet film; if they are going to run 6000 feet to make sheet, why wouldn't you run 10000 feet and make 120 as well?

The sheet film and roll film stocks are not the same. Check it out. 120 roll film is on a much thinner support than sheet film. Different manufacturing process.

 

[Chazzy]

Some have claimed that it is possible to get a similar look to that of TXP by processing Tmax 400 in a certain way, but I am allergic to the Tmax films.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Chazzy, TMY-II is a perfect match for TXP if you adjust the development. Rate TMY-II @ 320 and soup in TMAX developer 1:4 and it works well. Why are you allergic to TMAX films? They are no more difficult to work with than TXP.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

And if you have a really strong stomach:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Kevin Kehler]

Why are you allergic to TMAX films? They are no more difficult to work with than TXP.

I can't speak for Chazzy but my allergic reaction to TMAX and Delta films comes from their perfection, as in they look too good and not their difficulty (TXP is very finicky). Everytime I have made a print from "new" film as opposed to "classic" film, it looks like someone took a piece of Saran-wrap (cling wrap) and coated the print. Completely subjective of course, I know a number of people swear by them but they look plasticy to me.

 

[Kevin Kehler]

The sheet film and roll film stocks are not the same. Check it out. 120 roll film is on a much thinner support than sheet film. Different manufacturing process.

Very good point, I had forgot about that. On the other hand, in real dollars, how much do you think they sell in a year? While $50k is a lot of money to us, to a corporation which has to pay for the production, including materials, labour and depreciation of machines on top of paying to store the product properly, ship, market, accept returns and pay interest on expenses not yet recouped due to non-sale of product, it might be more hassle than it is worth. Especially since if some of it's other lines did $50k worldwide in a month, it would be cut instantly.

I would love Kodak to say it is going to keep TXP, even if it is break-even or slight loss, just for nostalgia. On the other hand, how much of your financial portfolio are you willing to have decline year-after-year just to keep one or two of your relatives happy?

 

[BradS]

I know this question is entirely subjective, but for you other TXP users out there, have you found a good replacement film/developer combo (in 120)?

I've always liked Ilford's FP4+ as it has the same look and handles very much the same as 320 TXP. Of course, the contrast curves are different but, with some practice, I think FP4+ can be used as a very good replacement for 320TXP.

 

[vdonovan]

Thanks Andrew and Brad, I will give those combinations a try.

I agree with the poster who thinks that the only reason TXP is still available in 4x5 is that they have stock to sell off. I think once it's gone, it's gone.

 

[Jay Decker]

I know this question is entirely subjective, but for you other TXP users out there, have you found a good replacement film/developer combo (in 120)? I guess I'm looking for a great tonal range, not much grain, and decent speed, though speed's not a big priority.

If you are scanning, here's what I recommend:

1) If you can tolerate the lower film speed, you have got to try Fuji Acros in XTOL.

2) Kodak TMY2 in XTOL is very good and scans well. Probably your best "direct" replacement.

3) If you can tolerate more grain, the easiest combination is Tri-X 400 in in Diafine and you want to shoot it at ASA 800 to 1250.

4) If you don't mind using a processing lab and have a good lab available, you might want to consider Ilford XP2 or Kodak BW400CN chromogenic films. Some people love them, some people hate them, some folks like to do their own developing... what ever. Having worked with the chromogenic films, the negatives have great tonality, scan well, and fine grain.

or, you can make me an offer on all the TXP that I stocked up on.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...TMY-II is a perfect match for TXP if you adjust the development. Rate TMY-II @ 320 and soup in TMAX developer 1:4 and it works well...

Interesting claim.

The rising curve of 320TXP (see page 13 here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf)

bears only a passing resemblance to TMY-2 in TMAX developer (see page 9 here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4043/f4043.pdf).

TMY-2 in D-76 comes a little closer, but not much. Also, the grain appearance of those two films is very different.

Of course, one could use an unusual developer like Edwal 12 (see the threads Sanders linked), but spectral sensitivity differences between these two films are still apparent.

Being a happy 320TXP sheet film user, I was just about to try it in rolls when Kodak announced the discontinuance. My conclusion: stick with sheets.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The obvious rollfilm replacement for TXP 320 is TX400. It's still being made in 35mm and 120. It has a shorter toe than TXP 320, which means better shadow separation, but not quite as strong a sense of line, maybe not quite as "graphic" a look as TXP. Of course TXP is still an option in sheet film.

I think it's mainly the spectral sensitivity that makes TMY and TMY-II look completely unlike TX or TXP, but that depends in part on lighting conditions, and TMY-II does look better to my eye than TMY. The texture of the grain is also different, and that may or may not appeal.

 

[applesanity]

I have 4 rolls of unexpired TXP kept in a cool, dark place if anyone wants it.

Personally, there are still so many ways to expose, develop, and print Tri-X and Plus-X, ways I've yet to try, that I never had the chance to play with TXP. I figured 4 rolls isn't enough on which to experiment, so I just keep them around.

 

[mike c]

I have 4 rolls of unexpired TXP kept in a cool, dark place if anyone wants it.

Personally, there are still so many ways to expose, develop, and print Tri-X and Plus-X, ways I've yet to try, that I never had the chance to play with TXP. I figured 4 rolls isn't enough on which to experiment, so I just keep them around.

what format? 120,220?

 

[BradS]

The obvious rollfilm replacement for TXP 320 is TX400.....

David is quite right ( I completely forgot about Tri-X 400). Even the official Kodak announcement suggests Tri-X 400 as the natural replacement.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you can shoot with 1.5 stops less effective film speed, Plus-X is an excellent alternative with a tonal curve that is very similar to that of Tri-X 320.