Using first roll of Tri-X!

[Bromo33333]

On this month's "Monthly shooting assignment" as muddlied as it seems to me, I think the topic is "work." As we are in work today, I am taking a few photos of 'work' on Saturday - but more interestingly, I am using my first roll of Tri-X.

My wife said it is a lot granier than TMAX - I am shooting it straight (it is TX400 and I am shooting it ISO400) as we are indoors. Given I am using a rangefinder, I can hold it hand steady to about 1/30 without a lot of fuss.

Anyone know any tips on getting the best results?

I am excited about new film!

(I currently have FAS instead of GAS! FAS = Film Acquisition Syndrome)

 

[BradS]

It is hard to go wrong with the new Tri-X and unlike the old tri-x the new stuff is NOt a lot grainer than TMax-400. I always use HC-110 dil. D with Tri-X but, really, you can achieve great results with most of the usual dev's.

Have fun and let us see some of the results.

Brad.

 

[Markok765]

Use rodinal 1:100 for that great grain, and high sharpness!

 

[gainer]

When the new Tri-X and TMY came out, Sylvia and Dick showed in Photo Techniques that Tri-X was in fact somewhat LESS grainy than TMY.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

When the new Tri-X and TMY came out, Sylvia and Dick showed in Photo Techniques that Tri-X was in fact somewhat LESS grainy than TMY.

I have a copy of that somewhere, I must say that I disagree that 400TX is finer grained than 400TMY.

 

[Bromo33333]

Hi Guys -

I got my film + prints back from Kodak (they did the processing) and wow - what great results! I liked the very soft grain, gave it a real vintage look, for some work I think I might prefer it (such as people photography for instance).

I like TMAX 400, too, it has less in-your-face grain, but I think I like Tri-X better for some stuff.

So... I got 4 more rolls of Tri-X and I think I have found another "film keeper!!"

Thanks for the discussion!! (note the new sig)

 

[jim appleyard]

X-mas will be here soon. Are these things on your list: Enlarger, timer, trays, tanks, reels, safelights, etc???

You just shot your first roll of TX. You're hooked now!

 

[Uncle Bill]

Tri-x is nice, I prefer shooting at 320-400 depending on lighting and processing in HC110 Dil B. for 6 min 30 seconds.

Bill

 

[fschifano]

When the new Tri-X and TMY came out, Sylvia and Dick showed in Photo Techniques that Tri-X was in fact somewhat LESS grainy than TMY.

I'm curious how they came to that conclusion. I've read the Kodak tech pubs for Tri-X (F-4017), Plus-X (F-4018), and the TMAX films (F-4016). The published figures for RMS granularity, in descending order of graininess, and "read at a net diffuse density of 1.0, using a 48-micrometre aperture, 12x magnification" follow:

• Tri-X 400 - 17
• Tri-X 320 - 16
• TMax 400 - 10
• Plus-X - 10
• TMax 100 - 8

From these numbers one can deduce that TMY is indeed less grainy than either flavor of Tri-X and on par with Plus-X. So how did they come up with the conclusion that Tri-X is less grainy than TMY?

Note that the quotes in italics are from the Kodak tech pubs. All the films in the list are tested for granularity using the same parameters.

 

[aldevo]

I have a copy of that somewhere, I must say that I disagree that 400TX is finer grained than 400TMY.

I agree with you, Keith.

While the authors of that PhotoTechniques article obviously have impeccable credentials (Zawadski, in particular) - I can't account for their results and the latest 400TX is definitely grainier than TMY in my experience. I do recall the article and I think they somehow measured an RMS of 16 for TMY and 12 for 400TX. Kodak's own published figures remainat 10 for TMY (same as Plus-X) and 17 for 400TX.

I used both before and after the 2002 move to the new coating facililty. They have changed very little, IMO. 400TX may be ever-so-slightly finer-grained now and it now uses a similar anti-halation coating to TMY - but it's grainier than TMY.

TMY often can fool the viewer into thinking it's grainier than 400TX. The grain has a "gritty" quality that tends to call attention to itself in areas of constant tone that are slightly lighter than middle-gray. It can prove to be a bit of an issue for skin tones and sky tones in 35mm...

 

[rmolson]

New Tri-X?

Whoa! I feel as though I have been in a time warp. New Tri-X and TMax400? I have just finished spending months switching over from TMax to Ilford HP5 because “Kodak was discontinuing manufacture of black and white film!” Obviously this is not the case..So TriX and TMax are now being made again? When did this happen I thought I was up to date. .

 

[Magnus W]

... switching over from TMax to Ilford HP5 because “Kodak was discontinuing manufacture of black and white film!” (...) So TriX and TMax are now being made again? When did this happen I thought I was up to date. .

Eh ...
AFAIK neither TriX nor Tmax where ever out of production. However there are a lot of people -- yours truly included -- that feels that Kodak's commitment to B/W film is half hearted at best, and thusly rather support companies like Ilford and Fuji, whose committment seem a lot more ... eh ... committed.

These folks vocal support of Ilford and Fuji might be the reason you thought that some Kodak stuff were out of production.

-- MW

 

[copake_ham]

Whoa! I feel as though I have been in a time warp. New Tri-X and TMax400? I have just finished spending months switching over from TMax to Ilford HP5 because “Kodak was discontinuing manufacture of black and white film!” Obviously this is not the case..So TriX and TMax are now being made again? When did this happen I thought I was up to date. .

Wonder where you heard this?

Since you are clearly familiar with The Web - perhaps you should make a visit to Kodak's website? Here's a link to the film section:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/7010&pq-locale=en_US

also:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/hub/photographer/photographerIndex.jhtml

etc.

No, I don't work for them. But they sure get a bum rap on this site - so someone has to play fair.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I love Tri-X 400. Wish they had it in sheets and not just in 120 and 35mm. Although TMax400 can be an outstanding film, a roll of TX400 through the trusty Holga is always entertaining. Can be fine grained in solvent developers such as Xtol, while Rodinal for instance will yield lots of grain. That grain looks great, however!

Have fun,

- Thom

 

[Snapshot]

I have been shooting with Tri-X rated at 1250 and developing it with Diafine. I impressed with the look of the grain considering the speed I'm shooting at it. I sometimes actually look foward to shooting with Tri-X over APX or T-Max.

 

[Earl Dunbar]

Thom: TX320 is available in sheet sizes; do you find that much difference between TX320 and TX400?

 

[m_liddell]

How do the results from using HC110 Dil B compare with Xtol 1:1? So far I have only tried xtol with it.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thom: TX320 is available in sheet sizes; do you find that much difference between TX320 and TX400?

Yep. I find a lot of difference between these two films, especially in the highlights. For artificial studio lighting I really like the TXP320, but outdoors I've not had any luck with it. I can't seem to get the development right.

So I don't use it for anyting besides indoor photography.

- Thomas

 

[noseoil]

First tx400 this weekend

Thom, first roll of the tx400 in pyrocat-hd. Exposed at 250, developed with minimal agitation. So far, so good. Now need to give it a workout with artificial light for a portrait or two. Hope to do this with a shot I can post soon. tim

 

[Nicole]

I also like using TriX 400 amongst other films (depending on many factors of the shoot) and personally love developing it in Xtol for very nice results.

 

[Earl Dunbar]

Thomas: Thanks for the information. Years ago I used TX320 in 4x5 and liked it well enough. I used HC-110 Dil. H, rated at ~200.