Film Type Advise

[ndwgolf]

I currently have 1 box of T-Max 100 (50 sheets) and looking at buying more film. I'm on B&H website and noticed that there recommended 4x5 film is TRI-X 320. So my question is TMAX or TRI-X..........I like to shoot landscape and portraiture with off camera lighting??
Thanks

Neil

[DrTang]

who cares what they advise... TMAX 100 is THE STUFF!!

[Arne Croell]

I currently have 1 box of T-Max 100 (50 sheets) and looking at buying more film. I'm on B&H website and noticed that there recommended 4x5 film is TRI-X 320. So my question is TMAX or TRI-X..........I like to shoot landscape and portraiture with off camera lighting??
Thanks

Neil
Regardless of what B&H says, it is a good idea to stick with one film/developer combination for a while when you start. Since you already have the TMAX 100, I'd go with that for a while.
TMAX 100 is a great film, I use it all the time.

[ndwgolf]

Regardless of what B&H says, it is a good idea to stick with one film/developer combination for a while when you start. Since you already have the TMAX 100, I'd go with that for a while.
TMAX 100 is a great film, I use it all the time.


who cares what they advise... TMAX 100 is THE STUFF!!
TMAX 100 it is then

[seezee]

Regardless of what B&H says, it is a good idea to stick with one film/developer combination for a while when you start. Since you already have the TMAX 100, I'd go with that for a while.
TMAX 100 is a great film, I use it all the time.

+1.

After you're comfortable with TMAX 100 and feel like experimenting with something unconventional, please join us over on the x-ray thread. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-Use-of-X-ray-film-technical-discussion-with-example-images)

[chassis]

TXP 320 and TMX 100 are very different films. I don't consider them near equivalents and, as others have suggested, would stick with TMX.

[ndwgolf]

TXP 320 and TMX 100 are very different films. I don't consider them near equivalents and, as others have suggested, would stick with TMX.TMX is not available at B&H in 8X10...they only have TRIX320
Ive ordered D-76 from B&H and they will add it to my order

[Ken Lee]

Tri X is a superb film. Just be sure to give adequate exposure: rate it at ISO 200 or lower.

Unless you plan to make large prints, you won't see any grain when shooting 8x10 film.

[ben_hutcherson]

I agree that TXP is a superb film, but just know that if you've shot TX in roll film, this is not the same film. It's similar, but not the same.

I shoot more TX(in terms of square footage) than any other film. I love TXP also, just like I said it's different.

[ndwgolf]

Tri X is a superb film. Just be sure to give adequate exposure: rate it at ISO 200 or lower.

Unless you plan to make large prints, you won't see any grain when shooting 8x10 film.
Ken just so that I fully understand that.........when metering for the initial exposure set the film speed in the meter at say 160 in the case of the TRIX320 and then develop using the box recommendations or maybe even slightly less............is that correct??

[Ken Lee]

Ken just so that I fully understand that.........when metering for the initial exposure set the film speed in the meter at say 160 in the case of the TRIX320 and then develop using the box recommendations or maybe even slightly less............is that correct??

Yes: their published developing times are good, but manufacturers have been over-stating film speed by around 1 f/stop, for decades. This topic has been discussed here, elsewhere and in books for decades.

Many people have tested many films in many developers. At this point, the only surprise we should expect is if our water supply is contaminated, our thermometer needs calibration, our agitation methods are peculiar, our light meter is off or our shutter speeds are wrong.

Given that film (and petrol) is becoming expensive - especially in 8x10 sheets - it can still be helpful to make some test exposures before you venture out to make important work.

You might find this article helpful: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/testing.php

[ben_hutcherson]

Yes: their published developing times are good, but manufacturers have over-stated film speed by around 1 f/stop for decades.

This topic has been discussed here, elsewhere and in books for decades. Many people have tested many films in many developers. The only surprise we should expect is if our water supply is contaminated, our thermometer needs calibration, or our agitation methods are peculiar.

Given that film is becoming expensive - especially in 8x10 sheets - it can still be helpful to make some test exposures before you venture out to make important work.

You might find this article helpful: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/testing.php

I know I've said this a bunch of times, but when I got into LF I started with emulsions that I was already comfortable with in roll film.

I bought a box of TXP, but when I bought that I went on Ebay and hunted down some expired 220 TXP, which hasn't been made in a couple of years. To me at least, the stakes are lower with roll film than with sheet film.

At the same time, though, I guess one could argue that shooting a few sheets of TXP-320 at $2/sheet is still cheaper(in terms of total cost) than paying $7+ a roll for expired rolls of the same film. Still, it's nice to get get 24 exposures for that $7 as opposed to 4 when shooting sheet film. You can get experiment with different exposure times pretty readily on a roll of film, and the developer requirements for a roll of 220 are roughly the same as for two sheets of 8x10.