Kodak Tri x 320 What is your opinion ?

[paulbarden]

I find it compelling that the very well published photographers use Tri X.

You can find evidence that many well known photographers use a particular film, and all that really tells you is that those people have learned how to get what they want from that film. It does not suggest that there is anything "special" or "superior" about that film. Unfortunately, Tri-X has been mythologized to the point that its virtues have been exaggerated beyond reason.

This seems to be another of those threads in which the originator appears at first to be asking questions but is really looking for validation of a pre-existing mindset. Don’t waste your time arguing over TXP.

Agreed. Nobody is going to persuade the OP that Tri-X isn't the "best film ever made", so no point in suggesting otherwise.

[Tin Can]

but X-Ray is cheap and real film


i mostly shoot X-Ray


and recall the absolute hatred of it


and how it was...

[BrianShaw]

... Unfortunately, Tri-X has been mythologized to the point that its virtues have been exaggerated beyond reason.

Just like Kodachrome and x-ray fim. LOL

[Axelwik]

I like debating film and gear as much as anyone, but I think people put too much time and effort into gear, film, etc., when it's 95% the photographer's skill that makes memorable images. An exceptional photographer could reliably use a toy camera with a plastic lens to make more memorable photographs than most "photographers" on this forum with the highest end equipment and film.

[BrianShaw]

I like debating film and gear as much as anyone, but I think people put too much time and effort into gear, film, etc., when it's 95% the photographer's skill that makes memorable images. An exceptional photographer could reliably use a toy camera with a plastic lens to make more memorable photographs than most "photographers" on this forum with the highest end equipment and film.

Agree, but I subdivide the 95% into two parts: skill and actual performance. A skillful photograph is ideal but a less-than-perfect photograph is often better than no photograph at all.

[Michael R]

Of course, and there is also a lot of slop in the process - regardless of the level of precision some believe they are getting with their methods. In the end once you’ve decided on the composition, and assuming you’ve given a B&W film adequate exposure, virtually all of the control is at the printing stage (or editing stage if one is scanning negatives). Unfortunately that gets lost when we get sidetracked into the rathole of films and especially film processing. The only real common denominator where great prints are concerned is great printing.

This is why beyond supplying someone with objective data regarding a film’s characteristics there really isn’t much else of value to say. If you ask whether or not TXP 320 is special or worth the money, and you’re looking to image examples, subjective impressions, or names of photographers, you’re getting zero information about the film or more importantly, how it compares with other films.

But if we must... George Tice has used TXP forever in 8x10. I have a few of his prints and they are superb. Does this help?

I like debating film and gear as much as anyone, but I think people put too much time and effort into gear, film, etc., when it's 95% the photographer's skill that makes memorable images. An exceptional photographer could reliably use a toy camera with a plastic lens to make more memorable photographs than most "photographers" on this forum with the highest end equipment and film.

[Richard Wasserman]

I like debating film and gear as much as anyone, but I think people put too much time and effort into gear, film, etc., when it's 95% the photographer's skill that makes memorable images. An exceptional photographer could reliably use a toy camera with a plastic lens to make more memorable photographs than most "photographers" on this forum with the highest end equipment and film.

Yes, a good example is "Iowa" by Nancy Rexroth shot with a Diana in Ohio (you can't believe everything you read).

[jnantz]

I do not want this thread hijacked by other emulsions. I need to know about Tri X 320 I already know about FP4 and HP% and the T Max. I like T max 100 in 8x10 ( thank you Keith) but I need to know about Tri X 320. Or is it so unpopular that no one has any practical experience?

Tin Can what say You?? You have some "On Ice"

Regards

I have a ton of it that I have used over the years but none of the film is from the last 20 years **. what I have and use is the 5x7 flavor, it develops well in every developer I have used it with, from caffenol to ansco 130 and dk50, , and it has enough of a tooth that if retouching leads are needed it works great. I'm not so much of a cheapskate but being practical, I figure you don't want experience with a film 10 reformulations ago, so my experience is with a completely different emulsion. I've used more recent emulsion ( the 320 ) and found it to be too slick, / tabular grain look and feel, I figure if I want tabular grain I'd buy a tab grain not tri x ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ...
don't forget to have fun!

[Sal Santamaura]

...I've used more recent emulsion ( the 320 ) and found it to be too slick, some people like that tabular grain look and feel, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯...

Just to be clear, John, I assume "slick" in this context refers to "image feel" and not either emulsion or base side shininess. Right?

[Axelwik]

Of course, and there is also a lot of slop in the process - regardless of the level of precision some believe they are getting with their methods. In the end once you’ve decided on the composition, and assuming you’ve given a B&W film adequate exposure, virtually all of the control is at the printing stage (or editing stage if one is scanning negatives). Unfortunately that gets lost when we get sidetracked into the rathole of films and especially film processing. The only real common denominator where great prints are concerned is great printing.

This is why beyond supplying someone with objective data regarding a film’s characteristics there really isn’t much else of value to say. If you ask whether or not TXP 320 is special or worth the money, and you’re looking to image examples, subjective impressions, or names of photographers, you’re getting zero information about the film or more importantly, how it compares with other films.

But if we must... George Tice has used TXP forever in 8x10. I have a few of his prints and they are superb. Does this help?

A great photographer also has to be a great printer.