Tri-x 400 fan vs. All other options

[RodinalDuchamp]

I have used tri-x 400 until now in 35mm and 120. I like this film. It plays well with Rodinal, the grain is something I enjoy it does not overpower an image.

However now in 4x5 TX400 is not available. I have read that TX320 is finicky and requires more control. I take this with a grain of salt but I do 80% of my shooting at night (landscape, long exposure) so control isn't always under my mastery due to x and y factors.

I am considering trying out ilford hp5+. Can I get some feedback from guys/gals who have had to make this decision? What where your experiences and how did other films stack up to TX400 in particular. Thanks.

[BetterSense]

There is nothing special about 400TX. It is a very plain good film. I would suggest TMY2. It is like 400TX but better.

TXP is nothing like 400TX.

HP5 is also very good but does have its own character. It has mediocre reciprocity characteristics, which could be disappointing for night photography.

[Ari]

If reciprocity is very important to you, you might want to try Fuji Acros.
It's a beautiful film with amazing reciprocity characteristics.

[mikew]

I have used tri-x 400 until now in 35mm and 120. I like this film. It plays well with Rodinal, the grain is something I enjoy it does not overpower an image.

However now in 4x5 TX400 is not available. I have read that TX320 is finicky and requires more control. I take this with a grain of salt but I do 80% of my shooting at night (landscape, long exposure) so control isn't always under my mastery due to x and y factors.

I am considering trying out ilford hp5+. Can I get some feedback from guys/gals who have had to make this decision? What where your experiences and how did other films stack up to TX400 in particular. Thanks.

Both HP5 and Tri-X320 are great films. You won't go wrong with either. I've used them almost interchangeably. It's really a matter of preference and whether you can execute the print you wish too. Tri-X 320 is no more difficult to control than any other film and differences in grain size/structure between films is pretty negligible these days. My only advice is that whatever you choose, stick with it for at least 3 months, assuming that you don't have any defect issues.

Have fun!

Mike

[RodinalDuchamp]

Both HP5 and Tri-X320 are great films. You won't go wrong with either. I've used them almost interchangeably. It's really a matter of preference and whether you can execute the print you wish too. Tri-X 320 is no more difficult to control than any other film and differences in grain size/structure between films is pretty negligible these days. My only advice is that whatever you choose, stick with it for at least 3 months, assuming that you don't have any defect issues.

Have fun!

Mike
Well I have used TX400 for so long and really don't want to change I want to eliminate as many non starters as possible. Testing will still take a while but it seems like right now its up between hp5+ and tmax though tmax is a "modern" grain which I'm not too sure if I'll like at all.

[StoneNYC]

Well I have used TX400 for so long and really don't want to change I want to eliminate as many non starters as possible. Testing will still take a while but it seems like right now its up between hp5+ and tmax though tmax is a "modern" grain which I'm not too sure if I'll like at all.

HP5+ will be closer to the grain you're used to.

Acros100 is my favorite for night exposures.

TMY-2 (Tmax400) is a second best for night exposures, both are excellent with night, the "second best" is personal preference not absolute, both have great reciprocity.

HP5+ is best for grain.

[Kevin Crisp]

It is hard to think of a less finicky film than 320 Tri-X.

[John Kasaian]

I have used tri-x 400 until now in 35mm and 120. I like this film. It plays well with Rodinal, the grain is something I enjoy it does not overpower an image.

However now in 4x5 TX400 is not available. I have read that TX320 is finicky and requires more control. I take this with a grain of salt but I do 80% of my shooting at night (landscape, long exposure) so control isn't always under my mastery due to x and y factors.

I am considering trying out ilford hp5+. Can I get some feedback from guys/gals who have had to make this decision? What where your experiences and how did other films stack up to TX400 in particular. Thanks.

HP-5+ is good stuff. I've found it to be an excellent replacement for Tri-X 400 in 35 & 120. I've also replaced Tri-X 320 with HP-5+ in large format. FWIW Badger Graphic has the best prices I've found for the stuff.

[mikew]

Well I have used TX400 for so long and really don't want to change I want to eliminate as many non starters as possible. Testing will still take a while but it seems like right now its up between hp5+ and tmax though tmax is a "modern" grain which I'm not too sure if I'll like at all.

If you're transitioning from one film format to another you'll have to test regardless. How much you choose to test depends on what you're trying to achieve and how comfortable you are with what you're producing.

Your real issue is processing method. I never consider the quality of a film without marrying it to a developer and processing method. With under-exposure and over-development or "expansions", for example, HP5 or Tri-X320 processed in Rodinal will yield larger, more pronounced, grain than if it was processed in Xtol. For some people that matters, for others it doesn't.

All that being said, HP5 will give you more latitude with development manipulations (N, N+1, etc) relative to T-Max. Both are great films, though.

All of the advice you'll read on here is only the starting point of a starting point. Testing can be maddening, but it's the only way to understand the limitations and capabilities of the materials with which you're working.

Best of luck!

Mike

[Corran]

In my opinion, fast (~400-speed) films are the last thing you should use for night-time exposures. If you think your exposure will be longer than about a minute, I highly suggest any of the T-grain emulsions available. I've used both T-Max 100 and Fuji Acros in very low-light conditions (inside abandoned buildings) with exposures ranging from 5 minutes up to 30 minutes (with reciprocity corrections). When I do astrophotography even 100-speed films are hard to work with, which is why I usually shoot between f/5.6 and f/8 max (with 2-3 hour exposures usually), though that is usually with Fuji T64 or Provia 100F chromes.

I believe I have read from multiple sources, that most 100-speed films are "faster" than 400-speed films when reciprocity is taken into consideration in very long exposures.

Now if you mean "night landscape" as more of a dusk/twilight time, then 400-speed films may be fine, though even then at f/22 or smaller may put you into rapidly worsening reciprocity failure.

[StoneNYC]

In my opinion, fast (~400-speed) films are the last thing you should use for night-time exposures. If you think your exposure will be longer than about a minute, I highly suggest any of the T-grain emulsions available. I've used both T-Max 100 and Fuji Acros in very low-light conditions (inside abandoned buildings) with exposures ranging from 5 minutes up to 30 minutes (with reciprocity corrections). When I do astrophotography even 100-speed films are hard to work with, which is why I usually shoot between f/5.6 and f/8 max (with 2-3 hour exposures usually), though that is usually with Fuji T64 or Provia 100F chromes.

I believe I have read from multiple sources, that most 100-speed films are "faster" than 400-speed films when reciprocity is taken into consideration in very long exposures.

Now if you mean "night landscape" as more of a dusk/twilight time, then 400-speed films may be fine, though even then at f/22 or smaller may put you into rapidly worsening reciprocity failure.

FYI Tmax400 (TMY-2) has better reciprocity than Tmax100(TMX) and because it's "twice" as fast, compensates even further, both Acros100 and TMY-2 are about on par with each other as long exposure times go, TMY-2 is SLIGHTLY better for the first ... Hour? Or so, then Acros100 pulls ahead by the 2 hour mark I think, but basically both are much better than TMX or any other B&W films, but each has a different look.

So saying fast films (400ish) aren't good for night work isn't really correct.

[Corran]

Have you actually done the testing/shooting? In my experience, and many others if my reading on the subject is correct, do not agree with you. And again, it depends on just how long of an exposure we are talking about.

Furthermore, the topic is about Tri-X, which is certainly not even in the same league as any T-grain film.

That being said, if the OP is talking about dusk, where 2 stops would help get the shot before the light changed too much, that may indeed be the ticket. Not enough info to say.

Edit - Also, found this, just for reference:
http://www.seeinglight.com/reciprocity.shtml

[StoneNYC]

Have you actually done the testing/shooting? In my experience, and many others if my reading on the subject is correct, do not agree with you. And again, it depends on just how long of an exposure we are talking about.

Furthermore, the topic is about Tri-X, which is certainly not even in the same league as any T-grain film.

That being said, if the OP is talking about dusk, where 2 stops would help get the shot before the light changed too much, that may indeed be the ticket. Not enough info to say.

Edit - Also, found this, just for reference:
http://www.seeinglight.com/reciprocity.shtml

Yes I do a lot of night work and have used both TMY-2 and Acros100 in both roll film and sheet film. Even side by side comparison shots. Of a few minutes to a few hours.

[StoneNYC]

I don't have great examples of the TMY-2 on hand, I didn't like the results of testing which was just me screwing around.

TMY-2

125664
125665

Acros100 (6x12 pano on 4x5, sorry, for example purpose only, not "technically 4x5)

125666
125667

[Corran]

Well I just have to disagree. Looking at some other data found on various fora, TMY reciprocity calculations seem to roughly match my findings as well.

Edit: considering the light sources in the photo, I don't think those would be very similar to the "night landscapes" the OP mentioned. But again, who knows what exactly he is shooting?

[StoneNYC]

Well I just have to disagree. Looking at some other data found on various fora, TMY reciprocity calculations seem to roughly match my findings as well.

Edit: considering the light sources in the photo, I don't think those would be very similar to the "night landscapes" the OP mentioned. But again, who knows what exactly he is shooting?

I'm talking about Kodak's data sheets... Look at them, TMY-2 (not TMY) and Acros100 have much better reciprocity than TMX. That's all I'm saying.

Your methods of exposure and personal style may differ, but you can't change light absorption characteristics of the grain by developing differently...

[StoneNYC]

BTW the images weren't to show the test examples (which are on my computer and are side by side comparisons) but to show simply that I wasn't bullshitting and actually have done it, that's all.

[Corran]

Kodak's data sheets... Look at them, TMY-2 (not TMY) ... [has] much better reciprocity than TMX.

From KODAK

TMY-2
metered->correction
10 second -> + 1/3 stop
100 seconds -> + 1 1/3 stops

TMX
metered->correction
10 second -> + 1/2 stop
100 seconds -> + 1 stop

The differences increase from there by all accounts with TMX being better at very long exposures.

Like I said, with really long exposures, TMX is better than TMY2. At 10 seconds they are essentially the same (in fact, in the TMX sheet it also has the TMY2 data, which is given as + 1/2 stop, not 1/3, strangely), but at loooong exposures, TMX pulls ahead of TMY, which is exactly what I said originally. Landscapes at night are going to be many, many minutes of exposure, unless he is bringing lots of light / strobes.

Yes, Acros is better than TMX, never said otherwise. I don't shoot Acros so I don't know the data off-hand but I had some sheets of it, and liked it for the reciprocity.

[StoneNYC]

From KODAK

TMY-2
metered->correction
10 second -> + 1/3 stop
100 seconds -> + 1 1/3 stops

TMX
metered->correction
10 second -> + 1/2 stop
100 seconds -> + 1 stop

The differences increase from there by all accounts with TMX being better at very long exposures.

Like I said, with really long exposures, TMX is better than TMY2. At 10 seconds they are essentially the same (in fact, in the TMX sheet it also has the TMY2 data, which is given as + 1/2 stop, not 1/3, strangely), but at loooong exposures, TMX pulls ahead of TMY, which is exactly what I said originally. Landscapes at night are going to be many, many minutes of exposure, unless he is bringing lots of light / strobes.

Yes, Acros is better than TMX, never said otherwise. I don't shoot Acros so I don't know the data off-hand but I had some sheets of it, and liked it for the reciprocity.

You're forgetting something very important here.... TMY-2 is 2 stops faster... That changes it all...

Trust me, it took me a WHILE to get why people would tell me TMY-2 was a shorter exposure time even at 2 minutes than Acros100 was... Really scratched my head on that one for a long time...

[Corran]

First of all, it depends on development/EI (for my development, TMY is only 1 stop faster). Secondly, once you get into exposures of many minutes, TMY is left in the dust.

I'm pretty sure even calculating a stop or two for TMY2, that TMX is "faster" once you hit 5 minutes base exposure max, maybe earlier. I think you have a different idea of what a "long exposure" at night is. My exposures start at 10 minutes and go up to hours...

Let's move on, this is off-topic more or less.

[StoneNYC]

First of all, it depends on development/EI (for my development, TMY is only 1 stop faster). Secondly, once you get into exposures of many minutes, TMY is left in the dust.

I'm pretty sure even calculating a stop or two for TMY2, that TMX is "faster" once you hit 5 minutes base exposure max, maybe earlier. I think you have a different idea of what a "long exposure" at night is. My exposures start at 10 minutes and go up to hours...

Let's move on, this is off-topic more or less.

As I said, before personal exposure preferences are taken into account.

Be well.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I am reading all of this but at work will give more info shortly about my subject. Usually though my exposures have been f11 @ 8sec on 645 not LF

[RodinalDuchamp]

I don't have great examples of the TMY-2 on hand, I didn't like the results of testing which was just me screwing around.

TMY-2

125664
125665

Acros100 (6x12 pano on 4x5, sorry, for example purpose only, not "technically 4x5)

125666
125667
Thanks for those samples I like the tonality in all of them. I shoot very similar lighting conditions so it gives me a rough idea as to how TMY-2 might perform for me.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Guys thank you for all the technical and anecdotal testimony you guys have given me.

Currently I am shooting outdoor architecture light by street lamp posts.

I have found that with TMX I get a good negative at f11 @ 8 seconds. However now shooting 4x5 I think my aperture needs to come up to at least f32 which would make my exposure close to 24seconds.

[Corran]

If you already are using TMX at those settings with roll film, yeah stop down to f/32 and if the scene requires roughly 24 seconds of exposure, I'd give it 50-60 seconds, develop N-1 or so, and call it a day. Call me crazy, but I don't see the point of a faster film at that level (I use 400-speed films when handholding or shooting in a situation that might have wind, causing blurred motion). BTW, developing it a little less curbs the highlights that are less affected by reciprocity.

I am confused though, considering the original post was talking about Tri-X and landscapes, not TMX and architecture. But the best thing to do is shoot, test, and determine your own best practice. Like I said, I love TMX in low-light, such as this 15-minute exposure, IIRC:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y-9zwPebPRY/UHYdBL9XuVI/AAAAAAAABMg/WFqmis_9pYw/s640/s04.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y-9zwPebPRY/UHYdBL9XuVI/AAAAAAAABMg/WFqmis_9pYw/s1600/s04.jpg)

[RodinalDuchamp]

If you already are using TMX at those settings with roll film, yeah stop down to f/32 and if the scene requires roughly 24 seconds of exposure, I'd give it 50-60 seconds, develop N-1 or so, and call it a day. Call me crazy, but I don't see the point of a faster film at that level (I use 400-speed films when handholding or shooting in a situation that might have wind, causing blurred motion). BTW, developing it a little less curbs the highlights that are less affected by reciprocity.

I am confused though, considering the original post was talking about Tri-X and landscapes, not TMX and architecture. But the best thing to do is shoot, test, and determine your own best practice. Like I said, I love TMX in low-light, such as this 15-minute exposure, IIRC:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y-9zwPebPRY/UHYdBL9XuVI/AAAAAAAABMg/WFqmis_9pYw/s640/s04.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y-9zwPebPRY/UHYdBL9XuVI/AAAAAAAABMg/WFqmis_9pYw/s1600/s04.jpg)
You are right I meant to say I have been shooting Tri-x not tmax. I apologize for the confusion.

[Corran]

Is that 8-second exposure with reciprocity calculated, or just a trial and error methodology?

Anyway, from my calculations, and with Tri-X 400 being pretty bad with reciprocity, I think T-Max 100 in the same situation would only need 4 or 5 seconds exposure, meaning you should "correct" it to roughly 8 seconds, so my calculations for f/32 hold up. I err on the side of a bit more exposure and less development depending on the developer (the above was developed in Rodinal). I don't really consider that long exposures though. I routinely shoot that kind of exposure (5-10 seconds) in broad daylight in the deep woods with a red filter.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Yes I stand develop for about an hour but have been advised more than once to overexpose a bit more and develop less. My 8 second exposure is from trial and error I did not do reciprocity tests but for the light conditions this seems to be an appropriate value.

[StoneNYC]

Yes I stand develop for about an hour but have been advised more than once to overexpose a bit more and develop less. My 8 second exposure is from trial and error I did not do reciprocity tests but for the light conditions this seems to be an appropriate value.

So you don't even meter you just "guess"?

[RodinalDuchamp]

So you don't even meter you just "guess"?
Yes I do meter, but from metering and testing 8 seconds has been my benchmark. There are however times when I cannot physically meter the area due to not having a spot meter or shooting at long distances etc. I prefer to take ambient light readings vs spot metering, personal preference.

But as far as guessing if I happen to come across a shot and didn't have my meter I would feel comfortable making an exposure based on my prior knowledge of how much output street lamps emit

[StoneNYC]

Yes I do meter, but from metering and testing 8 seconds has been my benchmark. There are however times when I cannot physically meter the area due to not having a spot meter or shooting at long distances etc. I prefer to take ambient light readings vs spot metering, personal preference.

But as far as guessing if I happen to come across a shot and didn't have my meter I would feel comfortable making an exposure based on my prior knowledge of how much output street lamps emit

Good call, good luck!

[RodinalDuchamp]

Good call, good luck!

This thread has opened up a few options that I did not consider before. TMAX looks like a great film choice but I still think HP5+ might be a little more forgiving. Lots of testing still to do but a great start from this thread.

[stradibarrius]

Stone in these two examples how did you meter. Did you take an ambient reading??
I don't have great examples of the TMY-2 on hand, I didn't like the results of testing which was just me screwing around.

TMY-2

125664
125665

Acros100 (6x12 pano on 4x5, sorry, for example purpose only, not "technically 4x5)

125666
125667

[RodinalDuchamp]

Stone in these two examples how did you meter. Did you take an ambient reading??
Id be interested in this as well

[StoneNYC]

Stone in these two examples how did you meter. Did you take an ambient reading??

I spot meter,

I tend to use "stone metering" I look at a scene and choose something grey-ish in the image at the tone I want to have as my baseline, and usually expose at that metered amount,, now that I'm printing in the darkroom (I previously only scanned) I'm learning to also take highlight and shadow metering into consideration. But not when these were taken.

For the silhouetted tree I took a reading in the shadow of the tree, for the moon silhouette I took the reflexion of the moonlight somewhere in the middle through the tree branches. For the polaroid factory I shot for the poster and behind the poster in the building and averaged, and for the oil tanks I metered near the staircase on the right.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I extrapolated my exposure to f64. My original exposure was 8seconds at f11, now however I am think it will be close to 4minutes at f64 without reciprocity correction which could be about a minute or two if I am calculating accurately for tri-x longer for tmax

[StoneNYC]

I extrapolated my exposure to f64. My original exposure was 8seconds at f11, now however I am think it will be close to 4minutes at f64 without reciprocity correction which could be about a minute or two if I am calculating accurately for tri-x longer for tmax

4 minutes before reciprocity is about 50 minutes after reciprocity correction for 400TX/320TX and 8 minutes for TMX.

[RodinalDuchamp]

4 minutes before reciprocity is about 50 minutes after reciprocity correction for 400TX/320TX and 8 minutes for TMX.
That fact makes TMX almost a defacto starting point for me. The nature of my work is somewhat precarious and setting up an hour long shot really is not a good idea.

[StoneNYC]

That fact makes TMX almost a defacto starting point for me. The nature of my work is somewhat precarious and setting up an hour long shot really is not a good idea.

Fuji Acros100 is 6 minutes

[Larry Kellogg]

I've had good luck using the Reciprocity Timer app on the iPhone:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/reciprocity-timer/id459691262?mt=8

[StoneNYC]

I've had good luck using the Reciprocity Timer app on the iPhone:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/reciprocity-timer/id459691262?mt=8

That's what I used for the times

[RodinalDuchamp]

That's what I used for the times
OK thanks for the times unfortunately I have an android and that app isn't available in the google play store.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I've had good luck using the Reciprocity Timer app on the iPhone:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/reciprocity-timer/id459691262?mt=8
Wish that app was available for my android. Thanks for the recommendation.

[StoneNYC]

Wish that app was available for my android. Thanks for the recommendation.

From what I recall, the guy said to me that basically the way that the coding is done by android is too complicated or maybe not complicated but a pain in the ass and he doesn't know if there are enough people using an android to make it worth creating, this is mostly designed for large-format shooters, not really 35mm or even 120 shooters as most of them don't encounter as many issues with reciprocity failure as this happens much more often with large format.

Anyway, it's an expensive app as apps go, and there's an upgrade, I probably spent $13-$15 total on it, best app I've owner besides the massive dev chart app

Sorry man.

[steveo]

I bought this a few months ago, exposure Assistant, on Android. It has the reciprocity the charts for most films so you put your metered time in and the app calculates the adjusted time for you.

I've been using it with fomapan 100 in the 54 for a while now and in very happy with the timings, I've also used it for some night shots and again got decent results.

The developer has just added a timer to the app so you don't need to switch between apps and programme a stopwatch.

It's less than two gbp. I have no idea if it's on ios or the weird windows thing.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mbognar.reciprocity_failure

[RodinalDuchamp]

That's an awesome app, I already downloaded it and started playing with it. Glad there are developers out there making useful apps for a change. Now I just have to but a ton of film and start working.

[RodinalDuchamp]

From what I recall, the guy said to me that basically the way that the coding is done by android is too complicated or maybe not complicated but a pain in the ass and he doesn't know if there are enough people using an android to make it worth creating, this is mostly designed for large-format shooters, not really 35mm or even 120 shooters as most of them don't encounter as many issues with reciprocity failure as this happens much more often with large format.

Anyway, it's an expensive app as apps go, and there's an upgrade, I probably spent $13-$15 total on it, best app I've owner besides the massive dev chart app

Sorry man.
For $15 it is a a bit steep but it is a niche market, those who need it will pay. It looks like steveo has pointed me to a similar android app so all is well.

[StoneNYC]

For $15 it is a a bit steep but it is a niche market, those who need it will pay. It looks like steveo has pointed me to a similar android app so all is well.

Not only does it log your info, you can take a picture of the scene, indicate the zones you've spot metered and save the exposure data with picture and input it into multiple things including dropbox as an excell file...

It's an extensive app, being able to see the exact zones you've metered etc is amazing.

[steveo]

Not only does it log your info, you can take a picture of the scene, indicate the zones you've spot metered and save the exposure data with picture and input it into multiple things including dropbox as an excell file...

It's an extensive app, being able to see the exact zones you've metered etc is amazing.

Thats pretty cool, shame its iOS only.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Yeah those are pretty wild features to have.

[RodinalDuchamp]

After much online viewing, yes I know online is not the same but it's all I can do right now. Tmax sometimes is so fine grained that it almost looks "digital ". I really like the reciprocity characteristics of tmax but I like the grain structure of tri-x better. Is there a film out there that has the grain structure similar to tri-x with decent reciprocity mitigation?

Edit: I'm guessing its going to be Acros 100

[Michael R]

Acros is nearly as fine grained as TMax 100.

[RodinalDuchamp]

It seems I am at a sad point. I like traditional emulsions but need the reciprocity characteristics of modern emulsions. Oh well I guess I can't have both. Since I don't want to spend an hour on a shot I'll just have to get used to the newer stuff.

[Michael R]

For anyone interested, the attached tests by Howard Bond are fairly good (if you aren't interested in reading the entire thing the table is at the end of the article).

http://phototechmag.com/black-and-white-reciprocity-departure-revisited-by-howard-bond/

[StoneNYC]

You're going into LF correct?

You won't have grain even with Tri-X ....

I think you are just used to the smaller formats, forget the grain and focus on the image.

Acros100 "looks" less digital than TMax but both are fine grained and again, in LF it doesn't matter much...

[RodinalDuchamp]

You're going into LF correct?

You won't have grain even with Tri-X ....

I think you are just used to the smaller formats, forget the grain and focus on the image.

Acros100 "looks" less digital than TMax but both are fine grained and again, in LF it doesn't matter much...
Ah! A strong point. I'm getting ready to order the film today I'll let you all know what I decide on and maybe eventually update this thread with test shots.

Best prices so far I have been able to find is my local photo store which has to special order sheet film but they want $132 for a box of 50 sheets of Tmax 400

[Corran]

http://www.adorama.com/KK40534550.html
For TMY2

TMX is cheaper:
http://www.adorama.com/KK40524550.html

I don't think Across looks "less" digital (or more, for that matter). It also depends on the development, yet again.

[RodinalDuchamp]

http://www.adorama.com/KK40534550.html
For TMY2

TMX is cheaper:
http://www.adorama.com/KK40524550.html

I don't think Across looks "less" digital (or more, for that matter). It also depends on the development, yet again.
That's a crazy price with free shipping

[StoneNYC]

Ah! A strong point. I'm getting ready to order the film today I'll let you all know what I decide on and maybe eventually update this thread with test shots.

Best prices so far I have been able to find is my local photo store which has to special order sheet film but they want $132 for a box of 50 sheets of Tmax 400

Did you try the obvious? B&H?

Acros100

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082129-RE

TMY-2

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545368-USA

TMX

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/244641-USA

Free shipping and fast

[RodinalDuchamp]

I actually didn't. I have been getting all my supplies from Freestyle and forgot all about B&H

[StoneNYC]

I actually didn't. I have been getting all my supplies from Freestyle and forgot all about B&H

Freestyle is generally slightly higher in price, however they oftentimes have products that B&H don't have or can't ship, so I split my purchasing between the two depending on what I'm buying, for example get my Rodinal from freestyle, and my DD-X from B&H.

Good luck!

[RodinalDuchamp]

Freestyle seems to be the only place that will ship rodinal

[StoneNYC]

Freestyle seems to be the only place that will ship rodinal

Yup, it's also probably that B&H is in NYC which means shipping through tunnels and bridgees to ship ground, and since its a toxic thing, some of that can't be shipped out.

It's ok, we have Freestyle :)

[axs810]

This has been a pretty helpful guide for me.


126037

[StoneNYC]

This has been a pretty helpful guide for me.


126037

*scratches head*

Grouping two separate and way different films together ...

Not exactly accurate lol

[axs810]

I've only used Tri-x but I've found it works lol...and other people from my college who used the other films seemed to get good results with the chart I posted. I use it more as a starting point/guideline for my shooting and developing methods

[RodinalDuchamp]

Stonenyc - I usually shoot Tri-X 400 at ASA 200. Would you have insight as to how this might affect reciprocity times? I would shoot TMAX 400 @ asa 200 as well.

[axs810]

Well you would be adjusting for a one stop difference, so for a quick example of how that would effect your shooting look at the chart I posted and see the difference in times per stop. Depending on your exposure at the time it could have little effect or big effect in time difference...IMO it's something to think about each situation

[Corran]

Your EI doesn't effect the reciprocity calculations, you just use the appropriate correct for the given exposure time for your EI.

Again, this is why TMY isn't necessarily "faster" than TMX, depending on the situation. You are shooting it like I do, at 200 - when I shoot TMY anyway (I've been on an HP5+ kick instead).

[StoneNYC]

Your EI doesn't effect the reciprocity calculations, you just use the appropriate correct for the givenen exposure time for your EI.

Again, this is why TMY isn't necessarily "faster" than TMX, depending on the situation. You are shooting it like I do, at 200 - when I shoot TMY anyway (I've been on an HP5+ kick instead).

WELL...

I would say again technically that yes it would affect the reciprocity "start" time by one stop, but I wouldn't really worry too much about it.

Corran in your example (EI 200) what is your personal EI for TMX? Is it 100 or 50 etc? If you cut TMY-2 in half, you probably also do so with other films.

Often times each manufacturer also suggests a change in the developing times when you encounter long exposure times with reciprocity times, each film is different. I don't usually follow those, but thought it worth mentioning.

It's honestly all very personal, just test!! It's sheet film so just make a few exposures and develop them all differently based on the exposure and see which works.

[Corran]

I rate TMX differently depending on developer. Usually 80 (Rodinal, N dev, 1:50) or 100 (FX-39, Acufine). TMY just hasn't been my favorite film but I always seem to get the best results at 200 or 250. Same as HP5+, incidentally.

And yes you absolutely should change development times depending on reciprocity/time. When I do really long exposures (15-30 minutes or more) I always cut the development by 15-20% per "stop" of correction. This is because the higher tonal values aren't as effected by reciprocity, so you get increased contrast the more you have failure (and why films with higher failure rates need even more reduction in development).

[RodinalDuchamp]

Just wanted to update this thread. I started spring semester and had a long conversation with my professor about this topic. Well I brought it up and she immediately said oh Tmax because of its reciprocity characteristics. So y'all where definitely right.

[StoneNYC]

Just wanted to update this thread. I started spring semester and had a long conversation with my professor about this topic. Well I brought it up and she immediately said oh Tmax because of its reciprocity characteristics. So y'all where definitely right.

:) good luck!

[John Kasaian]

Where do you find Tri-X 400 sheet film?

[StoneNYC]

Where do you find Tri-X 400 sheet film?

He's new he doesn't realize the sheet film is Tri-X Professional 320 (TXP) which is a different film altogether.

He found TMY-2 anyway so he's ok.

[jnantz]

Yes I do meter, but from metering and testing 8 seconds has been my benchmark. There are however times when I cannot physically meter the area due to not having a spot meter or shooting at long distances etc. I prefer to take ambient light readings vs spot metering, personal preference.

But as far as guessing if I happen to come across a shot and didn't have my meter I would feel comfortable making an exposure based on my prior knowledge of how much output street lamps emit

i did night work like this for years.

i used tmy ( the old version from the 1980s ) and exposed with
a sodium vapor lamp 20-30 feet up it was f22 @ 45 seconds, everytime
processed in sprint film developer at whatever time they recommended for tmy.
with me at least experience with lighting situation trumps meters, but that is just me ..

good luck figuring out what film to use !

[Kirk Gittings]

It is hard to think of a less finicky film than 320 Tri-X.

I totally agree.

[Drew Wiley]

Kodak probably wanted to kill off Tri-X a long time ago, and would have if it weren't for the sheer momentum of the name. Traditionalism. I never cared for the gritty stuff. Rather have TMY any day, though I admit that TMax films in general need to be carefully metered.

[Kirk Gittings]

After 20 years of using TX320 exclusively I did decide I wanted smaller grain and now use FP4+.

[Drew Wiley]

I like the better shadow gradation (steeper toe) and full 400 speed of TMY, esp in 8x10, though ACROS is awfully nice if the wind isn't kicking up, at least while my little reserve of 8x10 ACROS lasts! ACROS is a slick film and more prone to newton-ring issues, however. My stock of 4x5 b&w film is a bit low, so hard to say which of these two I'll buy next. It is constantly windy here in the Spring. I use FP4 and TMX in the lab quite a bit for color masking, so always have it on hand, but don't shoot these often in the field. I used to. Plenty of people do have done wonderful work with TX. I just don't like conspicuous grain except in 35mm work, which is more about general impressions anyway, rather than sheer texture or detail. FP4 is a bit more fragile in the developer in terms of scuff marks; and it tends to blow out the extremes in the mtns more than ACROS. I have a helluva lot of experience with it. Then there's the special spectral sensitivity of ACROS that I prefer. TMY is definitely the winner in extreme contrasts now that true straight-line films like Super-XX and Bergger 200 are gone.
Fomapan 200 has that kind of long straight-line, but a relatively low speed, as everyone knows by now. Too many flavors of candy in the candy store.

[Patrick13]

I love the gritty, tri-x stuff. If I didn't I'd gaussian blur everything and use the plasticizer plug-in all the time when scanning :p
I have a harder time with HP5 because I think it feels mushy, relatively speaking. I need to improve my technique and experiment more before I blame my film though.

[Corran]

I have a harder time with HP5 because I think it feels mushy, relatively speaking. I need to improve my technique and experiment more before I blame my film though.

I agree and that's why I didn't like HP5 for a long time. But I find I really like it in some more exotic developers, specifically SPUR HRX. Acufine is another good one. With more standard developers like XTOL or Rodinal I didn't like it at all.

[Bob Sawin]

After 20 years of using TX320 exclusively I did decide I wanted smaller grain and now use FP4+.

Kirk,

What developer do you use for FP4+?

Thanks,

[Kirk Gittings]

After some experimenting I settled on Pyrocat HD in Glycol.