The new Tri-X 8x10 film

[Michael S]

Recently, I decided to see if my old freezer stored Tri-X film was still usable. I have two batches of expired film from 2008 and 2013, so I bought a new ten sheet box of 8x10 Tri-X (expiration 2021) to compare. The 2008 and 2013 films which I shot under identical conditions of the same scene were exactly alike, rich in density and of good contrast. The new Tri-X (shot at the same scene as the other two and developed exactly the same) was thin and and seemed to possess much less silver in its emulsion (what I had expected from the older films). Has anyone else experienced this with the new Tri-X film? It just doesn't seem to be the same film anymore.

[Pere Casals]

hmmm... this sounds extrange...

Do you have a shutter tester ? A possibility is an inconsistency in the shutter.

Given the price, and to waste a minimum amount of film, my next shot would be one with a 5s exposure, I'd expose with the lens cap, and I'd check again 2013 vs 2021 sheets.

There are only two kinds of reliable LF shutters, the cap shutter and the Galli shutter.

[NER]

... It just doesn't seem to be the same film anymore.

You're correct. "In 2007, Tri-X was extensively re-engineered, receiving the new designation 400TX in place of TX or TX400, and became finer-grained. The amount of silver in the film stock was reduced," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Tri-X. It is entirely possible that further modifications by Kodak after 2007 account for the difference you observed between the 2013 and the newer emulsions.

N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com

[Pere Casals]

You're correct. "In 2007, Tri-X was extensively re-engineered,

Yes... but the 2013 it had to be the re-engineered version, and anyway the new version does not deliver thin negatives

[NER]

I see on closer reading that the 2007 and 2013 emulsions were said to be "exactly alike" after identical processing. In that case there may not have been further modifications after 2007, and I may have been needlessly wrong to suggest that possibility. Your statement that "the new version does not deliver thin negatives" is a dispute with the original poster, not with me. I made no such claim, and I have no reason to think Michael S. gives us an inaccurate or misleading account of his experience which happens to be entirely consistent with the information cited in my reply. If you know better, evidence supporting your claim might be welcomed by him and anyone else reading these exchanges. I for one would certainly be grateful to learn what you know about this matter.

N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com

[Drew Wiley]

Sadly, Michael has passed away.

[Sal Santamaura]

Sadly, Michael has passed away.

The only Michael I see in this thread (even after having "viewed posts" by an ignored member) is the OP, Michael S from Washington state. Are you referring to the late Michael Smith of Pennsylvania? If so, what does/did he have to do with 8x10 320TXP?

[Pere Casals]

Your statement that "the new version does not deliver thin negatives" is a dispute with the original poster, not with me. I made no such claim, and I have no reason to think Michael S. gives us an inaccurate or misleading account of his experience

Norman, there is no dispute. Both the 2013 and the 2021 are of the new version, and the 2021 was way thinner. So here we don't speak about the differences in the versions, but probably about another issue.

Also the 2008 (expiry date) may be the old emulsion and the 2013 is the new, and for OP they are similar...

The main +2007 manufacturing change was using some tabular grain instead some cubic, with less silver they obtain the similar density for the same exposure.

A main difference is that the +2007 version shows less grain, but this is mostly seen with rolls and not with sheets.

Thin/Thick it's easy to check in the kodak datasheets that are very good, they plot the sensitometric curves with absolute Lux·Seconds for the H, so there is no doubt about that, just read the datasheets and you'll get well informed.

Regards

[John Olsen]

Any chance you're seeing more background fog on the older sheets, making the image density appear thicker?

[Mark Sampson]

Long experience testing films (much of it within EK itself) tells me this; anomalous results happen. And they mean one thing; run the tests again.
Perhaps cut the sheets down to 4x5 to save money... but run the tests again, and keep careful notes.
And per Mr. Olsen, I would expect to see more base fog on film eleven years past date, kept frozen or not.

[interneg]

...The main +2007 manufacturing change was using some tabular grain instead some cubic, with less silver they obtain the similar density for the same exposure.


Not correct, on the basis of the best available information (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?133385-Subjective-film-advice&p=1351623&viewfull=1#post1351623).

It does use aspects of sensitising & layered dye technology in common with the tabular films & that is a likely cause of confusion - and longer fixing times in some situations. I would strongly recommend C-41 or similar fixer.

[Keith Fleming]

I thought the changes in Tri-X in 2007 were the result of Kodak erecting a new building for a new coating line. I have a memory that the new system introduced enough changes to require about a one-minute extension in developing time. Hopefully, some of you have a better memory than I.

Keith

[interneg]

I thought the changes in Tri-X in 2007 were the result of Kodak erecting a new building for a new coating line. I have a memory that the new system introduced enough changes to require about a one-minute extension in developing time. Hopefully, some of you have a better memory than I.

Keith

It was the move to Building 38's coating machine, and was around 2005. 2007 was when Tmax 400's revision into TMY-II happened.

[Pere Casals]

Not correct, on the basis of the best available information (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?133385-Subjective-film-advice&p=1351623&viewfull=1#post1351623).

It does use aspects of sensitising & layered dye technology in common with the tabular films & that is a likely cause of confusion - and longer fixing times in some situations. I would strongly recommend C-41 or similar fixer.



interneg, the microphotographs of tri-x referred in the link you point, Making Kodak Film, page 20, are of the pre 2007 Tri-X version, foot note states 5063 emulsion, data is from a 2015 doc but emulsion is the old 5063.

The micrograph for TMY is of 2007, but TMY-II was released in October 2007, so we don't know if it's TMY or TMY-II,

...what is clear in that Tri-X microphotograph of the section is of the old version.


"Kodak reengineered all of their films, including Tri-X, reducing the silver content and replacing it with increased color-dye sensitization, and semi-flattening the silver grains." 2008 edition of The Darkroom Cookbook, I don't if this is stated also in the previous editions...

[Michael S]

Thanks for all of the input. Admittedly, my experience with the new tri-x is preliminary at best, and my evaluation was based on only three pieces of film (as I was only trying to get a feel to see how the older emulsions held up in storage). I should have mentioned that the developer I used was pyro PMK formula. Maybe that's pertinent as well. Suffice it to say that I will go on and shoot more film and do some testing of them.