Is Tri-X in 8x10 less popular?

[MaximumFu]

It seems to me (and I will be the first to admit that this is based on purely anecdotal evidence/appearances) that Tri-X is not as popular in LF and 8x10 specifically as it is in MF and 35mm. Does that seem to be the case to anyone else and, if so, why is that? I know that Tri-X in sheet film format is a little more expensive - is that the cause?

Basically, it seems to me that an overwhelming number of people seem to shoot with FP-4 (again, far from a scientific observation). I shoot FP-4 in MF and love it, but was hoping to move back to my other love (Tri-X) for LF. It just seems rare that you hear about someone shooting Tri-X and developing in D76 in LF and I wonder why.

Would love to see samples of work done in LF with Tri-X.

-Matt

[Oren Grad]

Tri-X sheet film (TXP, previously TXT) is a completely different film from Tri-X roll film (TX) - it has a quite different characteristic curve (tonal scale). TX is my favorite roll film, but I prefer HP5 Plus to TXP for sheet film.

But there are plenty of people who like TXP too. Unfortunately, in recent years, like other Kodak sheet films, it has become far more expensive than Ilford sheet films; that has certainly scared off some potential users and induced some former users to switch.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Unfortunately, in recent years, like other Kodak sheet films, it has become far more expensive than Ilford sheet films...But significantly less expensive than 8x10 TMAX 400.

[Mark Sampson]

I used TXP-4164 in 4x5 and occasionally 8x10 from 1981 (more or less) until 2011 or so. Of course I was born and raised in Rochester, and worked for Kodak as an industrial/technical photographer from '84-2010. After ITT (EK's successor) threw me out in '10, I ran some tests, and Ilford FP4+ developed in Pyrocat gave me great results. So I switched. There's nothing wrong at all with TXP beyond Kodak's post-bankruptcy prices. Shoot your exposure/development tests on FP4+ and TXP, and make your choice based on results.
-Why would you ever give thought to what 'everybody' is doing? I think of Yogi Berra:
"Hey Yogi! You going' to "21 Club" after the game?"
"Nah, nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

[Alan9940]

I started with Tri-X sheet film when I got my first 4x5 in 1979. Moved up to 8x10 in the early 80's and, of course, continued on with Tri-X. I dabbled briefly with Super-XX, but loved my Tri-X! Been shooting it continuously for nearly 40 years and still like it. Sure...I wish it was still about 50 bucks for a 50 sheet box, but I'm glad I can still shoot it today. I do use a couple other films, but those are mostly for Pyrocat development.

[paulbarden]

Tri-X in 8x10" sheets cost $8.00 per sheet.
HP5+ in 8x10" sheets costs $$4.36 per sheet.

Tri-X sheet film is not sufficiently unique to warrant such an outrageous price difference, so people rarely (if ever) choose it over other 400 speed films.

[Sal Santamaura]

Tri-X in 8x10" sheets cost $8.00 per sheet...8x10 sheets of 320TXP can be had for $7.12 each:


http://www.freestylephoto.biz/8179707-Kodak-Tri-X-Pro-320-ISO-8x10-10-Sheets-TXP


...Tri-X sheet film is not sufficiently unique to warrant such an outrageous price difference...Any lack of uniqueness is your opinion. The difference is outrageous to you.

320TXP's retouching backcoating affords multiple benefits compared to any other 8x10 sheet film:


It lays very flat when loaded in film holders, during processing and when being printed/scanned
Its base side is not glossy, so Newton's rings are never a problem when printing or scanning.

To anyone who values those things, especially if film prices are evaluated in terms of all other costs incurred when making photography trips, the price difference isn't just not outrageous, it's insignificant.


...people rarely (if ever) choose it over other 400 speed films.320TXP isn't an ISO 400 film. It's rated at 320. In actual use, even processed in a speed-increasing developer like XTOL, I shoot it at EI 250. Despite Zone System testing that resulted in a 0.1 over fb-f result of EI 500. Stay off the toe's shallowest area and enjoy.

[paulbarden]

8x10 sheets of 320TXP can be had for $7.12 each:


http://www.freestylephoto.biz/8179707-Kodak-Tri-X-Pro-320-ISO-8x10-10-Sheets-TXP
Any lack of uniqueness is your opinion. The difference is outrageous to you.

Only my opinion, of course, but $7.12 per sheet is still nearly twice the price of HP5+ and for me, there is no reason to choose Tri-X over HP5+
And yes, of course - it is only MY opinion that Tri-X in 8X10 is not sufficiently unique to justify the price. Your opinion is just as valid as mine, and vice versa. What troubles me about this forum is so many people are quick to squash the opinions of others, when in fact we are all entitled to an opinion. I stated my thoughts on the matter, and so did you. Neither of us is wrong, neither is right, we simply have expressed what we think about the subject.

I would imagine most photographers shoot any of these fast emulsion films at 250ASA or less, so Tri-X is not unique in that regard.

[Alan9940]

I would imagine most photographers shoot any of these fast emulsion films at 250ASA or less, so Tri-X is not unique in that regard.

Funny, my testing of TXP320 of late has put my personal EI at 320; about 0.12 over fb+f. I will down-rate it a bit to 250, depending on the scene. I'm sure there have been many "discussions" about Tri-X vs HP-5+ but, for me personally, I never warmed up to HP-5+. That said, I love FP-4+ developed in Pyrocat-HD!

Cost is relative... Have you ever shot 8x10 Velvia 50? Think 20 bucks per sheet is too much? Perhaps for many photographers that's just too high a price to pay. For me, some scenes just SCREAM for LF Velvia and there is nothing else that will do IMO. I don't shoot a lot of it, but when I come across something that I know will fit Velvia's palette perfectly I'll reach for it every time. I'm just glad we all still have the tools and materials we choose to use.

My 2 cents, anyway.

[Sal Santamaura]

...What troubles me about this forum is so many people are quick to squash the opinions of others, when in fact we are all entitled to an opinion...Your post #6 presented costs, lack of uniqueness and rarity of being chosen as facts, not opinions:


Tri-X in 8x10" sheets cost $8.00 per sheet.
HP5+ in 8x10" sheets costs $$4.36 per sheet.

Tri-X sheet film is not sufficiently unique to warrant such an outrageous price difference, so people rarely (if ever) choose it over other 400 speed films.That's why I pointed out your conclusions were opinions, not facts.


...I would imagine most photographers shoot any of these fast emulsion films at 250ASA or less, so Tri-X is not unique in that regard.TMY-2 is an even more expensive 8x10 black and white film that many, including myself, shoot at EI 400 when developed in XTOL 1+1. Curve shape and ability to maintain highlight separation with increased exposure play into most photographers' decisions about the EIs they use, whether they consciously realize that or not.

[Drew Wiley]

Tri-X seems to be the only film many LF photographers shoot. I've always preferred different options. Besides, nearly all 8X10 b&w film seems cheap compared to 8X10 color. The bigger the format, the more carefully I shoot. Most people don't use 8X10 for horse races anyway.

[David Lobato]

A few years ago I was commissioned to do portraits on LF. I chose 8x10 Tri-X instead of my usual HP5+. I was very impressed with the Tri-X portraits. That the customer was very impressed is enough affirmation for me.

[Pere Casals]

Only my opinion, of course, but $7.12 per sheet is still nearly twice the price of HP5+ and for me, there is no reason to choose Tri-X over HP5+
And yes, of course - it is only MY opinion that Tri-X in 8X10 is not sufficiently unique to justify the price. Your opinion is just as valid as mine, and vice versa. What troubles me about this forum is so many people are quick to squash the opinions of others, when in fact we are all entitled to an opinion. I stated my thoughts on the matter, and so did you. Neither of us is wrong, neither is right, we simply have expressed what we think about the subject.

I would imagine most photographers shoot any of these fast emulsion films at 250ASA or less, so Tri-X is not unique in that regard.


What's for LF, IMHO an skilled LF photographer can obtain very, very similar results with TXP than with HP5+, or viceversa, by adjusting 2 things:

> First is filtering, TXP and HP5+ may have slightly different spectral response and filtering should be slightly different to obtain same result.

> Second is curve. TXP curve is more S shapped with longer toe. If scanning + lambda or ink printing it is very, very easy to make HP5+ match TXP. With traditional darkroom printing there is some effort to make both match.

Both films are good enough, perhaps TXP is a more advanced "industrial product", but both perform equally well in practice.


We have taken a lot of fun in the past by extensively discussing why Ilford and Kodak have similar prices in 120 format but Kodak (and Fuji) overprices by near 200% LF products (compared to Ilford, and to per surface price of same kodak film in 120 format), I'm not to discuss again about that fact, and why that policy. Just, let's say that this is a fact.


I found that TX is different than HP5+ in 120 and 35mm formats, because grain structure is different, so I use 120 TX, that suprisingly it is very cheap in 120 size (compared to LF). For LF I simply find a heavy burden to pay near x2 for near the same, as grain structure difference is not seen at all in LF.

Also I've to add that I'm in a country where standard of living is lower than in the USA and with more taxes, so I see that difference painful. In Europe for box of TXP you may pay 30% more than in the USA...

After I saw that freestyle "instant rebate" I've some hope I'll be able to shot some txp sheets in the future, as perhaps they may change present policy.

[John Kasaian]

I like Kodak films, but the difference in cost doesn't offer any significant advantage for me, plus I'm still smarting over Kodak's treatment of it's customers and employees---I know that's not the emulsion's fault---my brand loyalty evaporated back when there was a shortage of both Kodak(they shut down production to build a new coating building) and Ilford (they stopped production and filed bankruptcy) were both gone from the monochrome battlefield , so it became a matter of work with what was available or mothball the fleet until better days. That became a magical time for learning new emulsions and papers and proved to me anyway, that 8x10 contains so information that I can coax about anything I want out of it no matter the emulsion, so long as I do my part.
If Kodak reeled in their prices in alignment with Ilford, I'd sure give it a try but so far, nope.

Maybe that's why Tri-X isn't running away with the market. Or not.