Tri-X!/fav portrait film/ballad of Triple-Notch

[Kip Duff]

Dear Group:
Gotta love the insults of modern living- you'd think some things would remain unmolested. Webers Bread- still comes in same package with silly colored circle graphics (still builds strong bodies 12 ways); Earl Sheib- still painting cars. Used to shoot alot of Tri-X/D76- now I go to buy some and all hell breaks loose. Ive heard they moved production from Rochester (great!) to Colorado; were'nt able reach same standards so instead of correcting the problem (or moving back to Rochester), they introduce another version of Tri-X to be marketed simultaneously that also does not meet standards!!?? (am I getting this right?) What am I supposed to do? I tried HP5 per local lab recommendation but I shoot mostly mug-shot style portraits outdoors in indirect sunlight (lab recommended HP5 because of tonal range for shooting structures). I was thinking of going back to Tri-X just to have something I'm familiar with, and I need the 320 ASA speed. You guys that are still using Tri-X: what's up? It seems I can buy old or new Tri-X now: does it matter? I think anything that has the word "Pan" in the name is the old version: are both versions called "4164"? Any other advise for portrait film? I've been using Xtol stock in tanks. I have to shoot next weekend and I'm doing tests. Thanks.

[Donald Qualls]

The new Tri-X is coated in the same plant as T-Max, a cost reduction measure -- cheaper to run one line and switch emulsion formulae between runs than to keep up two or more complete factories. One of the changes that took place in conjunction with this move was a minor reformulation of small-formats Tri-X Pan; the new 400TX in 35 mm and 120 is now actually very slightly finer grained than 400TMY, even though it preserves the "gritty" feel of the grain compared to the "pebbly" feel of TMY grain.

The new 320TXP, descendant of TXT and TXP sheet and roll versions of Tri-X Professional has, as I understand it, undergone much less change; it's still pretty much the same stuff it ever was, and there's no longer any question whether it's the same emulsion in 120 as in sheets -- it is, pure and simple. Development time changes for both products were very small (except for whats generally accepted as a data transcription error for the HC-110 Dilution B time on 400TX) and can be ignored for many uses.

The packaging tells the story, in terms of telling old from new -- if it has the speed before the letter abbreviation, it's the newest iteration (100PX, 100TMX, 320TXP, 400TX, 400TMY); if not, it's an older version (the last of the TXT sheets expired not quite two years ago, and there's considerable TXP in sheets and 120 still in date). And yes, those are all the silver B&W camera still films Kodak now sells -- they make a bunch more in 16 mm and 35 mm cine, copy films, and microfilms, but don't sell them through camera related outlets, and of that bunch only Imagelink HQ is available in a size that can be recut to 4x5 (nice film, BTW, it'll make 8x10 prints from a 10x14 mm negative with similar grain to Plus-X 35 mm at the same print size, though EI 25 is a little restrictive in a tiny camera).

[ronald moravec]

Kodak is a lost cause. Forget `em. You will have to do it in a year or so anyway, so why not now.

They are getting out of the analog photography soon so says their CEO.

HP 5 is nice traditional film. So is FP4. Delta 100 if you like hi tech. Kodak has absolutely nothing on Ilford.

D76 can be mixed from scratch quickly and easily at a very low cost. I just got 20 lb sodium sulphite from the chemistry store and 1 lb metal from Photographers Formulary. Repackage yourself to smaller air tight bottles to stop oxidation. All the rest of what I need is already on the shelf including the makings for Deltol (D72).

[Jim Rhoades]

I only use Tri-X and D-76 for my 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 work. I've found that I develop the new X about 10% longer. This and some left over Azo is the only Kodak product that I use anymore. I cannot think of a good reason why I even support these rat bastards with that anymore. But I'll keep up with Tri-X as long as I can get it. When, not if, they stop making it I guess I'll place one big last order.

You don't leave the girl that you brought to the dance. Kodak did, and they will be sorry.

[Frank Petronio]

I live near Rochester and always went out of my way to support Kodak over Fuji (although I bent to use Ilford and Oriental).

I still think Fuji is dumping product in a sleazy, uncompetitive way that is unethical. But I'll buy any other alternatives to Kodak because supporting the small, cottage-industry film and paper manufacturers is good for the future possibility of having viable suppliers. Spending money with Kodak or Fuji makes no difference to their decision to continue supporting traditional imaging. Spending a few hundred bucks with a small company most certainly does.

[Brian Ellis]

If one company (Kodak) has said it's abandoning film, paper, and chemicals, and another (Ilford) says it's in film, paper, and chemicals for the long haul, and if you like to use film, paper, and chemicals, which company should you be supporting? I don't use photographic paper any more but I do use film and the chemicals needed to process it. I buy from Ilford and don't understand why anyone who cares about film, paper, and chemicals would continue buying from Kodak. TriX may be a fine film but as someone else said, you're going to have to use something else pretty soon anyhow given Kodak's announced intentions so why not start now and maybe help a company like Ilford that's committed to film, paper, and chemicals survive?

[Matt Mengel]

I was using Ilford products and was very happy. When Kodak changed to the new plant someone suggested trying the new emulsion Tri-X. After trying it I loved it and switched to Kodak. Now that they are shooting themselves and all the rest of us in the figurative foot, I'm buying Ilford again. I've never had any problems with HP5+ and FP4+ and feel bad that I ever switched in the first place. I mix my own chemistry also, so when that stuff dries up (no pun intended) I'll be o.k.

[Mark Sawyer]

A Message from Kodak Management, (January 22, 2004 )

Dear Photographer,

Because you are a valued partner, I am writing to explain the facts behind the announcements <http://kodak.prq0.com/apps/redir.asp?link=XbgdfdfgCJ,ZceaebbchjDA&oid=Udfie CA&iclitemid=XbfcbfhiCJ&tid=WbffeefCE> Kodak made on January 22nd. I want to avoid any potential misunderstanding about Kodak's commitment to traditional film photography as we experienced after a similar meeting last September.

Kodak remains committed to film, photographic paper, and traditional photography now and in the future. In fact, we will aggressively defend our leadership positions in film and paper.

True, we will accelerate growth of our digital products and services. However, our goal is to grow the total photography category for our mutual benefit.

View <http://kodak.prq0.com/apps/redir.asp?link=XbgdfdfgCJ,ZceaebbchjDA&oid=Udfie CA&iclitemid=XbfcbfhiCJ&tid=WbffeefCE> January 22, 2004 Press Release.

Best regards,

Bernard Masson President Digital & Film Imaging Systems Eastman Kodak Company

************************************************

(Uhhh, gee... don't you guys trust Kodak?)

[j.e.simmons]

I shot Tri-X for 30+ years and gave up with the latest emulsion change a couple of years ago. Ilford HP 5+ is good film - different from Tri-X, but very good. The Classic 400 film sold by JandC Photo is also very good, and that's what I am experimenting with now.

[Kip Duff]

Dear Group:
Bought 25 sheet 4X5 box of "320 TXP" (new version of Tri-X). Did test shots A-B comparison with HP5. Not really fair test because HP5 exposed and developed per Ilford specs (400 ASA/Xtol) was a little overexposed (!?). With normal dev, it's like I should shoot it at 600 or more ASA- in other words the negs were'nt optimum. The Tri-X exp/dev'd per specs (320 ASA/also Xtol) was just about right. I have to say that there is something I'm a sucker for about the way Tri-X renders the human subject; and in this case, I say it beat the HP to my eye. I have to give the HP more tests (as well as many other films). Gonna buy another 50 sheets of Tri-X for now. Also wanna check out J&P (never heard of them). I can't experiment any more before the weekend, so-..... I going to Tri to stay with the try-X and I am Xtoling the virtues of extoll (sorry). To be continued..... Thanks, Kip.