View Full Version : Tri-X turns 60 this year
Very good article on Tri-X and the photographers who made wonderful photographs with it. It's worth the long read and it's not the usual evangelical piece that is usually written about film as one might find out there.
http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/features/bryan-appleyard/tri-x-factor?page=full
Brian C. Miller
19-May-2014, 13:17
Too bad you didn't make the thread with a poll. How many still use Tri-X? In what format?
The film has quite a history, of course. It would be hard to point to another film that's been used more. Kodachrome is gone, but Tri-X is hanging around just fine.
Heroique
19-May-2014, 13:28
Happy Birthday Tri-X.
My favorite 35mm film (in Rodinal or D-76), but I haven't shot it in LF.
I often shoot it at 1/2 box speed, so I think that makes it 30 years old, not 60.
Pete Watkins
19-May-2014, 13:38
The best film in the world. Just wish that I could afford to use it all the time.
Pete
Too bad you didn't make the thread with a poll. How many still use Tri-X? In what format?
arghhh ! you're right Brian. wonder if polls can be added as an edit ;)
Read that article awhile ago. I just feel I should warn people that candle wax ruins the emulsion.
richardman
19-May-2014, 19:51
I use it on 35mm and 120mm and would use it on 4x5 if they make it (not the TX320 stuff)
I always have at least one 35mmm body loaded with Tri-X at any time. I also rate it at 200 and cook it in D76 1+1.
It will be a sad day if they ever stop making the yellow and green boxes of magic.
StoneNYC
20-May-2014, 00:03
I use it on 35mm and 120mm and would use it on 4x5 if they make it (not the TX320 stuff)
This is one of the reasons I don't use Tri-X I won't use an emulsion thys doesn't translate to all formats, 320TX is not the same as 400TX.
So in response to the 2nd post about a poll, I don't shoot Tri-X I shoot HP5+ and I've only shot probably 5 rolls of Tri-X my entire life, 2 of which I shot at EI3200 and pushed it, with horrible results. HP5+ pushes to 3200 just fine. The other few rolls were out of necessity as the store was out of TMY-2 and I needed some 400 speed film.
I know it was a great film, and produces a look that is very remarkable, and so I celebrate it's birthday as respect to all the amazing photographers who have created glorious images with this classic film.
Happy Birthday Tri-X! Hope to still see your shots by others on your 75th birthday!
Ironage
20-May-2014, 06:41
The article reminds me of the film "The Secret Life of Walter Middy". A trifle of a script that is a masterpiece of joyful entertainment in the final product. I myself use Tri-X 320 in 5x7. It fits my personality. Just another nostalgic luddite who is slow to evolve. New is not always improved.
Jim Noel
20-May-2014, 07:25
60 years old yes. Like most of us it has changed many times over the years and the current emulsions are nothing like the early ones. My favorite has not been made for years- Tri-X Ortho.
djdister
20-May-2014, 07:27
I use it on 35mm and 120mm and would use it on 4x5 if they make it (not the TX320 stuff)
Well this is old news and all that, but I used to shoot Tri-X 400 in 4x5 and 5x7 sheets when they used to make it...
Brian C. Miller
20-May-2014, 08:45
Read that article awhile ago. I just feel I should warn people that candle wax ruins the emulsion.
But you don't need a candle if the base is nitrate... (evil smiley)
2 of which I shot at EI3200 and pushed it, with horrible results.
According to the docs, 1250 is max. TMY also doesn't really push past 1600.
And back to the topic, the article mentions that Kodak doesn't have any plans to celebrate Tri-X. Sheesh, if it was Disney marking an anniversary, there would be fireworks! Of course when it hit it's 50th, this was Kodak's response: (http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20040212-03.shtml) "To mark the fiftieth anniversary of TRI-X film, the film's packaging will carry a special '50 years' seal throughout 2004." Nice, the package got a little logo. Have to plan something for November 1st.
I think something like this would go great with White Stripe's "Little Room" song. Alternate cameras and photographs.
Michael Graves
20-May-2014, 10:15
Are you sure about that? Wouldn't shooting it at half-speed make it last twice as long. Wouldn't it be 120?
I've been stocking up on Tri-X in 120 because I decided, cost or not cost, if I was going shoot, I was going to shoot with my favorite film. I don't have a problem with the 320 in sheet film, but it doesn't seem to have the same look. I like how it handles highlights, but I seem to get overall better results in sheet film with HP5. It's probably just me and the way I do things.
Happy Birthday Tri-X.
My favorite 35mm film (in Rodinal or D-76), but I haven't shot it in LF.
I often shoot it at 1/2 box speed, so I think that makes it 30 years old, not 60.
Good grief!! I thought that Tri-x was older than dirt. Now you tell me that it is younger than me. :rolleyes:
Brian C. Miller
20-May-2014, 12:05
Apparently despite prior Tri-X sheet film in the 1930s to the contrary, Kodak marks the "birth" of Tri-X with the introduction of it in roll film format. I have no idea how much the formula has changed in the mean time.
Heroique
20-May-2014, 12:41
Are you sure about that? Wouldn't shooting it at half-speed make it last twice as long. Wouldn't it be 120?
You could be right – I was thinking that since the film sees twice as much light it must have younger eyes!
Good grief!! I thought that Tri-x was older than dirt. Now you tell me that it is younger than me. :rolleyes:
There might be a way to feel a touch younger. :D
Tri-X sheet film is even more decrepit (sorry, more mature) than its 35mm version – the sheet film is 74 years old.
If you're older than that, I admire your dedication to our game! The "How old are we?" thread suggests there's a sizeable and energetic group of post-75 members around here who hit the field all the time. And without baby carriages for their gear!
StoneNYC
20-May-2014, 12:58
You could be right – I was thinking that since the film sees twice as much light it must have younger eyes!
There might be a way to feel a touch younger.
Tri-X sheet film is even more decrepit (sorry, more mature) than its 35mm version – the sheet film is 74 years old.
If you're older than that, I admire your dedication to our game! The "How old are we?" thread suggests there's a sizeable and energetic group of post-75 members around here who hit the field all the time. And without baby carriages for their gear!
I think we need a new bowl on that one, because frankly, I've now moved into the next age group... I'm probably not the only one... And the sad other part of that, is a few really good ones have fallen off the chart :( RIP film Af...)
Jim Noel
20-May-2014, 15:05
Yes, some of us passed 75 several years ago. I do travel lighter now usually only with the 8x10 and 7x17.
Happy Birthday to You , Happy Birthday to You, Happy Birthday Dear Tri-X, Happy Birthday to You! Every B&W 135 and MF photographer loves you. I have a drawer full of your 40-ish year old identical siblings, the first film I cut my teeth on as a teenager. Many LF photographers love you to bits.
W K Longcor
21-May-2014, 13:26
60 years old yes. Like most of us it has changed many times over the years and the current emulsions are nothing like the early ones. My favorite has not been made for years- Tri-X Ortho.
That brings back good memories. Tri-X Ortho was the greatest for doing those "rugged" looking portraits of men. I think I may still have a 1/2 box or so of Tri-X Ortho in 5X7 size tucked away on a self somewhere. Of course, it has not been refrigerated in almost 18 years--- but that never bothered me much. Actually, now that I am retired from the business, it doesn't bother me at all!
StoneNYC
21-May-2014, 15:03
That brings back good memories. Tri-X Ortho was the greatest for doing those "rugged" looking portraits of men. I think I may still have a 1/2 box or so of Tri-X Ortho in 5X7 size tucked away on a self somewhere. Of course, it has not been refrigerated in almost 18 years--- but that never bothered me much. Actually, now that I am retired from the business, it doesn't bother me at all!
Go shoot it! And then buy new film to keep it going! :)
al olson
23-May-2014, 10:12
I can remember how excited we were when Tri-X was introduced. I was shooting 35mm with a Kodak Retiinette that had a f/4.5 lens. Being able to make shots at twice the speed of Super-XX and pushing it even faster was wonderful for low light photography. By 1955 I had a Retina IIIc with a Schneider f/2 lens which made it even better.
As far as 4x5 films, Royal Pan X was my favorite when it was introduced a couple of years later. I felt that its texture was a lot smoother than Tri-X.
Tri-X turns 60 this year
So do I. Still got some 8x10 that I am using.
Al -- I started out LF using Royal Pan X in 4x5 (ca 1979) -- but because that is what the camera store carried. I did not know yet about such things as smoother tones, etc.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.