Tri-X 320 or 400 120 roll

[Gerry Harrison]

Hello,

This is not a LF film question..yet it does apply to LF if you use a roll back or shoot 120 as a test run before using 4x5 or larger as I do. Is there any major difference in Tri-X 320 Pro & 400 in 120 size. From what I understand is 320 Pro is balanced to Tungsten light...is this an issue with B&W? Anyone using either or both and have some opinions it would be of great interest to me and all.
Thanks Gerry

[Sheldon N]

I use TX 400 in 35mm and 120 and TXP 320 in 4x5. Can't say I notice much of a difference, but I'm not that picky either.

[PViapiano]

The films are two totally different emulsions. It's unfortunate that they share the Tri-X name.

Both of them are B+W films, therefore they are not balanced to any particular kind of light. It's also been said that 320 TXP is only for studio work. Very definitely NOT the case.

The characteristic curve is very different for each film. You should look at the Kodak data sheets on their web site.

I use both films in medium format extensively, and 320 TXP for B+W 4x5 work. I use HC-110 for processing and get great results with this combination.

[Janko Belaj]

I strongly disagree with following:

Both of them are B+W films, therefore they are not balanced to any particular kind of light.

And here is part of answer ("part" only because spectrograms are much better answer)

The characteristic curve is very different for each film. You should look at the Kodak data sheets on their web site.

I'm sorry I can't give the best explanation on english - most of you know that my english is limited to few simple expressions - but I'll try. (don't kill me, please )

Even today some manufactures are showing or addressing spectrograms for different light sources. I say "even today" because most of them try to create sort of universal film. But there is no such thing as absolutely universal. And specially if you prefer "old type" emulsions like efke/adox.
If some emulsion's spectrogram show you more response in red part of spectrum than in blue - this one won't work in the same way under daylight and artificial light. Exposure for some emulsions don't have to be compensated, but for some you have to compensate for almost 1EV. And *if* you want same (or as similar as possible) result taking shot of 2 apples (red and green for example) you will have to use some filtration while sooting. And that is "light balancing".

ufff... clumsy explanation, I know, but can't do any better now.

[PViapiano]

This is the only thing Kodak's data sheets say about TXP that could be misinterpreted as biased toward tungsten lighting.

"TRI-X 320 Films (320TXP) feature excellent tone
gradation and brilliant highlights. They are especially well
suited to low-flare interior lighting or flash illumination."

This has nothing to do with color temperature.

In regards to your second paragraph regarding spectrographs, I respectfully add that if you are worrying about certain B+W films sensitivity to color in 99.9% of your shooting, then you have my sympathies.

I've seen too many people get mired in such minute and trivial detail that it inhibits their ability to just go out and shoot.

[BrianShaw]

I use TX 400 in 35mm and 120 and TXP 320 in 4x5. Can't say I notice much of a difference, but I'm not that picky either.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Recently I was buying a new light meter and the salesman kindly gave me a brick of almost-expired 120 TX400. The salesman must be a member of this forum because he said "it's junk but maybe you can find a use for it." I recently shot a few rolls and was very satisfied.

[Janko Belaj]

I knew I could bet and win that my clumsy english would be misinterpreted. No, I didn't say that TXP is better for tungsten or any other light source, I didn't say that any film is better for some lightning circumstances, I simply wrote that b&w film(s) do react different on light(s) from different types of light sources. tungsten, flash, daylight, you name it. and sorry PViapiano, but that is true. and is very easy to be proven.
And about your sympathies for my concern about spectral sensitive of b&w emulsions... thank you, but don't worry. I certainly do not care about such details. I do shoot. As often as I can. digital daily, b&w at least every second weekend. on my beloved efke 25. indoor or outdoor, I don't care. I do simply enjoy

[reellis67]

I've used 320 in 4x5 in the same circumstances that I would use 400 in 120 format and it turns out fine. I've read where people say that it is significantly different, but I've not had problems - but as you said, I'm not into all the numbers either...

- Randy

[PViapiano]

Janko,

First of all, let me say that your photos are wonderful and I wish I could visit your part of the world someday. Secondly, your English is excellent...much better than mine, and I'm a native speaker!

I think we were misunderstanding the use of the term "balanced". I said that TXP is not "balanced" (by the manufacturer) for any particular light. The original poster used that term.

It may inherently be "sensitive" to certain spectra, but that should not be a concern to the photographer in the majority of situations.

My humble apologies if I came off as less than a gentleman...

[Gerry Harrison]

Hello Janko,

I had a chance to visit your website and found your B&W very fine. You mention your favourite film is Efke 25 ..those shots were great and I especially like the shot of the church in which youstsed using Fuji 100. Thanks for contibuting to my thread.

Gerry