Kodak Tri x 320 What is your opinion ?

[Torontoamateur]

This "old favourite" has withstood decades and is still going.

It is expen$ive.

Is it so different?

I do portraits of family mostly with my 8x10 cameras . Is it worth the higher cost?

With the rest of the cost of chemicals and the time and paper and darkroom chemicals is the film cost per sheet really that significant ?

What is your opinion or experience with 8x10 Tri X ?

BTW I have been using FP4and HP5 for the most part so far.

Confused in The Great White North

[Michael R]

TXP 320 has a different exposure-density curve than many other films. It was originally intended primarily for controlled lighting/studio/portrait situations. It has a somewhat longer toe (ie a little less contrast in dark areas) than a film like FP4/HP5, and a somewhat “upswept” curve shape favouring mid tone and highlight contrast, compared with FP4/HP5. It will also easily develop to higher densities compared with FP4/HP5.

A unique feature is the slight “tooth” to the base side of the film, originally intended for retouching. The nice thing about that is it means you’re less likely to have to deal with Newton rings when glass is involved (scanning, glass enlarger carriers, contact printing).

It’s expensive, yes. Kodak sheet films are expensive but they’re still my favourite. I really think they are still the best so I’ll hang on as long as I can. If I shot 8x10 and shot a lot of film, it might be a different story though. Depends on what you can afford I guess.


This "old favourite" has withstood decades and is still going.

It is expen$ive.

Is it so different?

I do portraits of family mostly with my 8x10 cameras . Is it worth the higher cost?

With the rest of the cost of chemicals and the time and paper and darkroom chemicals is the film cost per sheet really that significant ?

What is your opinion or experience with 8x10 Tri X ?

BTW I have been using FP4and HP5 for the most part so far.

Confused in The Great White North

[Alan Klein]

TXP 320 has a different exposure-density curve than many other films. It was originally intended primarily for controlled lighting/studio/portrait situations. It has a somewhat longer toe (ie a little less contrast in dark areas) than a film like FP4/HP5, and a somewhat “upswept” curve shape favouring mid tone and highlight contrast, compared with FP4/HP5. It will also easily develop to higher densities compared with FP4/HP5.

A unique feature is the slight “tooth” to the base side of the film, originally intended for retouching. The nice thing about that is it means you’re less likely to have to deal with Newton rings when glass is involved (scanning, glass enlarger carriers, contact printing).

It’s expensive, yes. Kodak sheet films are expensive but they’re still my favourite. I really think they are still the best so I’ll hang on as long as I can. If I shot 8x10 and shot a lot of film, it might be a different story though. Depends on what you can afford I guess.

Michael can you explain Tmax 100 and 400 in terms of density curve and other factors as well in relationship to these other films?

[Daniel Unkefer]

There is a lot of olde Tri-X Pro around and I have some 220 TXP I loaded up on, when 220 was phasing put. As it gets older it generally requires more exposure and adjusted developing. 4x5 TXP I shot a lot in the eighties and I always liked it a lot. Required more exposure than 35mm and 120 Tri-X, was good to have to compare against HP-5 (not +).

[jnantz]

I used to love tri x, but haven't bought it in ages because their emulsion scientists improved it too much.. it's almost like tmy

[paulbarden]

IMO there's no compelling reason to buy Tri-X rather than any other film, many of which are literally HALF the price.

[Sal Santamaura]

TXP 320 has a different exposure-density curve than many other films. It was originally intended primarily for controlled lighting/studio/portrait situations. It has a somewhat longer toe (ie a little less contrast in dark areas) than a film like FP4/HP5, and a somewhat “upswept” curve shape favouring mid tone and highlight contrast, compared with FP4/HP5. It will also easily develop to higher densities compared with FP4/HP5.

A unique feature is the slight “tooth” to the base side of the film, originally intended for retouching. The nice thing about that is it means you’re less likely to have to deal with Newton rings when glass is involved (scanning, glass enlarger carriers, contact printing).

It’s expensive, yes. Kodak sheet films are expensive but they’re still my favourite. I really think they are still the best so I’ll hang on as long as I can. If I shot 8x10 and shot a lot of film, it might be a different story though. Depends on what you can afford I guess.

As usual, Michael provides a thorough, succinct synopsis of a film's characteristics. Given how much struggle with Newton's rings gets documented on this and other forums, the value of 320TXP's base side coating cannot be stressed enough. Also, considering the attention paid to film flatness in holders, especially for 8x10 and larger, it's important to note that the 320TXP base side coating makes this the most rigid sheet film on the market. It does not sag to any appreciable degree. The attached image was made on 8x10 320TXP. In scanning, the only curve adjustment made was to slightly roll off the extreme high values, i.e. foreground snow areas. In a darkroom print they're burned in a bit.


IMO there's no compelling reason to buy Tri-X rather than any other film, many of which are literally HALF the price.

I would argue that, for some users, the factors described are more than compelling reasons to purchase 320TXP. If those things are not important to someone, perhaps they will be happy with lesser products.

[Bruce Watson]

This "old favourite" has withstood decades and is still going.

It *is* an old favorite. No question. It took me years to let Tri-X go. But I did. I replaced it with TMY. For a couple of reasons.

First, TMY has much better reciprocity characteristics than any cubic-grained film like Tri-X. Not a concern in smaller formats where you hardly run into long exposures except for night photography. But for LF, I ran into it all the time. I had very difficult times hitting my exposures exactly right -- that is, so that my shadow detail held up. It was a knife edge kinda deal for me, using 1/4 and 1/8 second shutter speeds a lot (welcome to LF), which is fine for the midtones / highlights, but which tends to starve the shadows of photons (puts the shadows into reciprocity failure).

First time I tried TMY it was "boom -- problem over". I never put any shadows into reciprocity again. This made TMY a no-brainer for me; I threw the rest of my opened Tri-X box in the trash and never looked back. I know -- sacrilege, right?

Second, and more subjective for sure, I find the response curve for TMY to be much more how I see the world in B&W. TMY is more linear I think, with a short toe and hardly any shouldering off. But it's the way it renders colors to B&W that I like best. It renders colors to grayscale just how my mind wants to see it done. Yeah, probably not everybody's taste. But it's what I want in a film.

The closest I've found in a cubic-grained film is FP-4+, but it's too slow for me. I really want an ISO of around 400 or higher (TMY in XTOL gave me a PEI of 500 in my system). And of course its reciprocity characteristics show up even more because it's a slower film.

So yeah, for me TMY is worth the money. It's the only B&W film I've used for the last 20 years or so.

But of course, YMMV.

[Michael R]

Alan, I'll post a few of my own curves below - they are consistent with the published data from Kodak and Ilford but might help with comparisons.

To answer your question, I would first say that unless the scene has an extreme exposure range, TMX, TMY-2, FP4, HP5 and Delta 100 will all produce essentially the same tonality. I think it's important to make this point up front so that people don't obsess over inconsequential differences, especially in LF where other differences such as grain and sharpness are virtually meaningless barring gigantic prints.

Here are superimposed curves for TMX, FP4 and Delta 100, developed in XTOL:

240470

TMY-2 differs somewhat from the others in the extreme highlights, where it has more contrast rather than a gradual shoulder. Acros is similar but no longer available in sheet sizes. You can visualize this by superimposing TMX and TMY-2 curves:

240471

It should be noted that the highlight contrast/shouldering behaviour of films like TMX, HP5 etc. can be altered somewhat by the developer type. For example, one reason Kodak released TMax developer was ostensibly to extend the contrast of TMX further up the curve. You can see this effect in Kodak's published curves for TMX where it has a longer, somewhat straighter curve when developed in TMax developer. Other developers that can be used for less gradual shouldering are things like HC-110 (or Ilford's equivalent) and Ilford PQ Universal.

TXP 320 is a little different than all of the above in that its "native" curve shape is somewhat upswept (slightly reduced contrast in dark areas/shadows, lots of contrast in midtones all the way up to extreme exposure levels). If you were to develop TMY-2 in one of the developers listed above such as HC-110, you'd get a little closer to the rendering of TXP 320, but I don't want to overemphasize these differences.

TXP 320 has more of the old style (significantly worse) reciprocity failure characteristics than TMY-2.

Incidentally one nice thing about the Ilford films is the much better reciprocity failure compensation information in Ilford's tech docs compared with what Kodak supplies. I badgered Ilford into doing this several years ago. Prior to that Ilford's tech docs showed the same generic reciprocity graph for all of its films. I like to periodically toot my horn on that one. :)

Hope this helps.


Michael can you explain Tmax 100 and 400 in terms of density curve and other factors as well in relationship to these other films?

[Tin Can]

Glad I bought that KODAK garbage

Got a case on ice 320

11X14

[Michael R]

Lol, if you weren’t already retired I’d have suggested you hold onto it to retire on someday.


Glad I bought that KODAK garbage

Got a case on ice 320

11X14

[Torontoamateur]

I also shoot 11x14 ,A Wisner Technical Field. I am looking for 11x14 Tri X I wrote to Keith C today and maybe he knows Or does Tin Can know where there si a box or two for sale?

[Alan Klein]

Alan, I'll post a few of my own curves below - they are consistent with the published data from Kodak and Ilford but might help with comparisons.

To answer your question, I would first say that unless the scene has an extreme exposure range, TMX, TMY-2, FP4, HP5 and Delta 100 will all produce essentially the same tonality. I think it's important to make this point up front so that people don't obsess over inconsequential differences, especially in LF where other differences such as grain and sharpness are virtually meaningless barring gigantic prints.

Here are superimposed curves for TMX, FP4 and Delta 100, developed in XTOL:

240470

TMY-2 differs somewhat from the others in the extreme highlights, where it has more contrast rather than a gradual shoulder. Acros is similar but no longer available in sheet sizes. You can visualize this by superimposing TMX and TMY-2 curves:

240471

It should be noted that the highlight contrast/shouldering behaviour of films like TMX, HP5 etc. can be altered somewhat by the developer type. For example, one reason Kodak released TMax developer was ostensibly to extend the contrast of TMX further up the curve. You can see this effect in Kodak's published curves for TMX where it has a longer, somewhat straighter curve when developed in TMax developer. Other developers that can be used for less gradual shouldering are things like HC-110 (or Ilford's equivalent) and Ilford PQ Universal.

TXP 320 is a little different than all of the above in that its "native" curve shape is somewhat upswept (slightly reduced contrast in dark areas/shadows, lots of contrast in midtones all the way up to extreme exposure levels). If you were to develop TMY-2 in one of the developers listed above such as HC-110, you'd get a little closer to the rendering of TXP 320, but I don't want to overemphasize these differences.

TXP 320 has more of the old style (significantly worse) reciprocity failure characteristics than TMY-2.

Incidentally one nice thing about the Ilford films is the much better reciprocity failure compensation information in Ilford's tech docs compared with what Kodak supplies. I badgered Ilford into doing this several years ago. Prior to that Ilford's tech docs showed the same generic reciprocity graph for all of its films. I like to periodically toot my horn on that one. :)

Hope this helps.

Thanks. I started shooting 4x5, landscapes, recently and have tried both Tmax 100 and Tmax 400. I like smooth toning.

TMY's extra two stops has it's advantages especially when it's windy. Also, I've noticed, at least when scanning 4x5, that Tmax 400 appears to show more grain. if you open the photos and click on them, they will enlarge to see the grain better)

Any thoughts?

Tmax 100: https://flic.kr/p/2iWuqbU
Tmax 400: https://flic.kr/p/2jcbMjA

[Jim Noel]

Stick with what you know. HP5+ can make beautiful portrait negatives.

[Michael R]

It’s hard to say what’s going on as I don’t know enough about scanning. I’d be surprised if a scanner can resolve film grain or that there is enough magnification in the image to see grain.

I’m any case, TMY-2 is slightly grainier than TMX, as one would expect due to its higher speed. However TMY-2 is also the finest grained fast film and is at least as fine grained as any 100 speed sheet film besides TMX. So if you want smoother/finer grain than TMY-2 you’re pretty much out of luck unless you stick with TMX which is the finest grained of the medium speed films.



Thanks. I started shooting 4x5, landscapes, recently and have tried both Tmax 100 and Tmax 400. I like smooth toning.

TMY's extra two stops has it's advantages especially when it's windy. Also, I've noticed, at least when scanning 4x5, that Tmax 400 appears to show more grain. if you open the photos and click on them, they will enlarge to see the grain better)

Any thoughts?

Tmax 100: https://flic.kr/p/2iWuqbU
Tmax 400: https://flic.kr/p/2jcbMjA

[Torontoamateur]

Stick with what you know. HP5+ can make beautiful portrait negatives.

I do not want this thread hijacked by other emulsions. I need to know about Tri X 320 I already know about FP4 and HP% and the T Max. I like T max 100 in 8x10 ( thank you Keith) but I need to know about Tri X 320. Or is it so unpopular that no one has any practical experience?

Tin Can what say You?? You have some "On Ice"

Regards

[Drew Wiley]

It has its own look which others have made good use of. Seldom me. It doesn't fit my personal style well. I call it Triassic-X. Large buckshot or shrapnel grain, medium toe, much less deep shadow resolution than TMax unless it's overexposed, and then you risk shouldering off the highlights. That didn't bother contact printers with their long-scale slow papers; but it's risky with typical silver gelatin printing. Once in awhile I seek its look and use TX souped in pyro, but only for small format snapshottish applications where a bit of grittiness adds impact. Like "cult lenses", Tri-X lives on mostly due to just an antique reputation. But it is different, so why not try it?

[Vaidotas]

I’m not technical person, but what Michael said in post #2 explains a lot to me.
TriX 320 is my film for 4x5.
I always develop it in Xtol 1:1 and always getting low contrast in dark tones which sometimes makes me mad.

[Drew Wiley]

What Roman Loranc did using the combination of 4X5 Tri-X and PMK pyro was to follow the old contact printing adage, despite enlarging onto MGWT, and both overexpose and overdevelop the film in order to boost the shadow values way up onto the straight line, and get good medium to high value tonal expansion. Then his habit was to try to split tone it with gold toner followed by Kodak Brown sulfide toner, which would bring an apricot-pink into the near-highest values, and make those uppermost value
interesting. That amounts to a bit of roll of the dice, and is never entirely predictable; and when it didn't go so well, and the stain didn't transpire, his highlights come out essentially blank and textureless, because these are in fact shouldered off.

Therefore, it has been the strategy of numerous practitioners of Tri-X to seriously overexpose it in order to get decent shadow gradation. With TMax films, you don't have that problem due to the longer straight line way down into the shadows. And in former days, Super-XX was preferred for the same reason in higher contrast scenes. But the same thing could be said about HP5, with its own medium toe characteristics. I simply avoided HP5 when it came to high-contrast situations, or else resorted to unsharp masking (via film) to appropriately alter the curve profile when printing.

[Michael R]

I do not want this thread hijacked by other emulsions. I need to know about Tri X 320 I already know about FP4 and HP% and the T Max. I like T max 100 in 8x10 ( thank you Keith) but I need to know about Tri X 320. Or is it so unpopular that no one has any practical experience?

Tin Can what say You?? You have some "On Ice"

Regards

The problem is practical experience isn’t going to provide you with any objective or comparative information. The curves in Kodak’s tech pub. tell you how it works. It will be grainier than TMY-2 but image structure is totally irrelevant when it comes to the large sizes you are working with. Reciprocity failure probably isn’t an issue either since you are primarily interested in portraiture. Other than that all there is to know is it is a high quality film with a long, venerable history.

It is undoubtedly less popular than it once was, at least in part because of TMax. Kodak sheet films are also expensive. Etc.

[Drew Wiley]

Heck, I've seen blatant grain evident in upper midtones in otherwise textureless areas like skies from 4X5 Tri-X enlarged just to 16X20 or even 11X14 over and over again. It will be a LOT grainer than TMY400, and even that is an understatement. It's a film from back in the Blunderbuss days, where one loaded the barrel with a bunch of rocks. If you like that look, fine; otherwise ...

[Tin Can]

I like grain

I have used a lot of HP5 in 11X14

I like all the Ilford films

I bought the case ot 320 for a project, then the Plague...

but big XRay is great for heads

I always have plans

[Drew Wiley]

My Dad built a big greenhouse but wanted all the window glass cheap. So he got a huge pile of free exposed X-Ray glass plates which turned up a mile away in the basement of what had formerly been a TB Sanitarium. Kinda a Halloween experience walking in there, with all the bone and skull windows. But he mainly did that due to his sense of humor.

[Torontoamateur]

I like grain

I have used a lot of HP5 in 11X14

I like all the Ilford films

I bought the case ot 320 for a project, then the Plague...

but big XRay is great for heads

I always have plans

Tell us about that project . We are interested.

[darr]

My Dad built a big greenhouse but wanted all the window glass cheap. So he got a huge pile of free exposed X-Ray glass plates which turned up a mile away in the basement of what had formerly been a TB Sanitarium. Kinda a Halloween experience walking in there, with all the bone and skull windows. But he mainly did that due to his sense of humor.

LOL!!
I always love hearing your stories! :D

[Alan Klein]

What Roman Loranc did using the combination of 4X5 Tri-X and PMK pyro was to follow the old contact printing adage, despite enlarging onto MGWT, and both overexpose and overdevelop the film in order to boost the shadow values way up onto the straight line, and get good medium to high value tonal expansion. Then his habit was to try to split tone it with gold toner followed by Kodak Brown sulfide toner, which would bring an apricot-pink into the near-highest values, and make those uppermost value
interesting. That amounts to a bit of roll of the dice, and is never entirely predictable; and when it didn't go so well, and the stain didn't transpire, his highlights come out essentially blank and textureless, because these are in fact shouldered off.

Therefore, it has been the strategy of numerous practitioners of Tri-X to seriously overexpose it in order to get decent shadow gradation. With TMax films, you don't have that problem due to the longer straight line way down into the shadows. And in former days, Super-XX was preferred for the same reason in higher contrast scenes. But the same thing could be said about HP5, with its own medium toe characteristics. I simply avoided HP5 when it came to high-contrast situations, or else resorted to unsharp masking (via film) to appropriately alter the curve profile when printing.

Which Tmax do you prefer and why?

[Torontoamateur]

Which Tmax do you prefer and why?

I find it compelling that the very well published photographers use Tri X. Is it that their photos are more suited to be published. Many went into panic when Kodak suggested TriX would be discontinued years ago and also some who moved to digital ( due to X ray issues at Airport Security) we fastidious to have their digital emulate Tri-X.

What is your take on that?

[Tin Can]

i wannbee

Mortensen

one perfect print

hand touched up for hours/days

and the film needs toofh

to carry the pencil

BTW

I have 2

Adams Touch UP Machines

[Michael R]

This seems to be another of those threads in which the originator appears at first to be asking questions but is really looking for validation of a pre-existing mindset. Don’t waste your time arguing over TXP. We’ve got other crap to argue over lol.

[BrianShaw]

Mortensen is woefully under-rated and under-appreciated!

[paulbarden]

I find it compelling that the very well published photographers use Tri X.

You can find evidence that many well known photographers use a particular film, and all that really tells you is that those people have learned how to get what they want from that film. It does not suggest that there is anything "special" or "superior" about that film. Unfortunately, Tri-X has been mythologized to the point that its virtues have been exaggerated beyond reason.


This seems to be another of those threads in which the originator appears at first to be asking questions but is really looking for validation of a pre-existing mindset. Don’t waste your time arguing over TXP.

Agreed. Nobody is going to persuade the OP that Tri-X isn't the "best film ever made", so no point in suggesting otherwise.

[Tin Can]

but X-Ray is cheap and real film


i mostly shoot X-Ray


and recall the absolute hatred of it


and how it was...

[BrianShaw]

... Unfortunately, Tri-X has been mythologized to the point that its virtues have been exaggerated beyond reason.

Just like Kodachrome and x-ray fim. LOL

[Axelwik]

I like debating film and gear as much as anyone, but I think people put too much time and effort into gear, film, etc., when it's 95% the photographer's skill that makes memorable images. An exceptional photographer could reliably use a toy camera with a plastic lens to make more memorable photographs than most "photographers" on this forum with the highest end equipment and film.

[BrianShaw]

I like debating film and gear as much as anyone, but I think people put too much time and effort into gear, film, etc., when it's 95% the photographer's skill that makes memorable images. An exceptional photographer could reliably use a toy camera with a plastic lens to make more memorable photographs than most "photographers" on this forum with the highest end equipment and film.

Agree, but I subdivide the 95% into two parts: skill and actual performance. A skillful photograph is ideal but a less-than-perfect photograph is often better than no photograph at all.

[Michael R]

Of course, and there is also a lot of slop in the process - regardless of the level of precision some believe they are getting with their methods. In the end once you’ve decided on the composition, and assuming you’ve given a B&W film adequate exposure, virtually all of the control is at the printing stage (or editing stage if one is scanning negatives). Unfortunately that gets lost when we get sidetracked into the rathole of films and especially film processing. The only real common denominator where great prints are concerned is great printing.

This is why beyond supplying someone with objective data regarding a film’s characteristics there really isn’t much else of value to say. If you ask whether or not TXP 320 is special or worth the money, and you’re looking to image examples, subjective impressions, or names of photographers, you’re getting zero information about the film or more importantly, how it compares with other films.

But if we must... George Tice has used TXP forever in 8x10. I have a few of his prints and they are superb. Does this help?


I like debating film and gear as much as anyone, but I think people put too much time and effort into gear, film, etc., when it's 95% the photographer's skill that makes memorable images. An exceptional photographer could reliably use a toy camera with a plastic lens to make more memorable photographs than most "photographers" on this forum with the highest end equipment and film.

[Richard Wasserman]

I like debating film and gear as much as anyone, but I think people put too much time and effort into gear, film, etc., when it's 95% the photographer's skill that makes memorable images. An exceptional photographer could reliably use a toy camera with a plastic lens to make more memorable photographs than most "photographers" on this forum with the highest end equipment and film.

Yes, a good example is "Iowa" by Nancy Rexroth shot with a Diana in Ohio (you can't believe everything you read).

[jnantz]

I do not want this thread hijacked by other emulsions. I need to know about Tri X 320 I already know about FP4 and HP% and the T Max. I like T max 100 in 8x10 ( thank you Keith) but I need to know about Tri X 320. Or is it so unpopular that no one has any practical experience?

Tin Can what say You?? You have some "On Ice"

Regards

I have a ton of it that I have used over the years but none of the film is from the last 20 years **. what I have and use is the 5x7 flavor, it develops well in every developer I have used it with, from caffenol to ansco 130 and dk50, , and it has enough of a tooth that if retouching leads are needed it works great. I'm not so much of a cheapskate but being practical, I figure you don't want experience with a film 10 reformulations ago, so my experience is with a completely different emulsion. I've used more recent emulsion ( the 320 ) and found it to be too slick, / tabular grain look and feel, I figure if I want tabular grain I'd buy a tab grain not tri x ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ...
don't forget to have fun!

[Sal Santamaura]

...I've used more recent emulsion ( the 320 ) and found it to be too slick, some people like that tabular grain look and feel, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯...

Just to be clear, John, I assume "slick" in this context refers to "image feel" and not either emulsion or base side shininess. Right?

[Axelwik]

Of course, and there is also a lot of slop in the process - regardless of the level of precision some believe they are getting with their methods. In the end once you’ve decided on the composition, and assuming you’ve given a B&W film adequate exposure, virtually all of the control is at the printing stage (or editing stage if one is scanning negatives). Unfortunately that gets lost when we get sidetracked into the rathole of films and especially film processing. The only real common denominator where great prints are concerned is great printing.

This is why beyond supplying someone with objective data regarding a film’s characteristics there really isn’t much else of value to say. If you ask whether or not TXP 320 is special or worth the money, and you’re looking to image examples, subjective impressions, or names of photographers, you’re getting zero information about the film or more importantly, how it compares with other films.

But if we must... George Tice has used TXP forever in 8x10. I have a few of his prints and they are superb. Does this help?
A great photographer also has to be a great printer.

[Alan Klein]

You can find evidence that many well known photographers use a particular film, and all that really tells you is that those people have learned how to get what they want from that film. It does not suggest that there is anything "special" or "superior" about that film. Unfortunately, Tri-X has been mythologized to the point that its virtues have been exaggerated beyond reason.



Agreed. Nobody is going to persuade the OP that Tri-X isn't the "best film ever made", so no point in suggesting otherwise.

My memory might be off. But I seem to recall that when Tri-X came out, its main attractiveness was the fast 400 ASA speed.

[Drew Wiley]

Replying to Alan, I shoot both TMY100 and TMX400. The faster version is obviously better for large format usage with its smaller f-stops, especially on windy days. But I shoot it in all formats from 35mm to 8x10, and process it in PMK pryro. The 100 speed product is ideal for Med Format usage which needs a higher degree of enlargement. But I have to resort to a different developer to get comparable edge effect. I keep quite a bit of TMX100 sheet film on hand for technical darkroom usage (masks, internegatives, color separation negs, etc), so some of that inevitably gets used for generally shooting too. I have to ration my 8X10 TMY400 sheets more circumspectly, because I have less of it, and it's getting expensive to replace.

Otherwise, is my memory getting off, and is this no longer the Large Format forum? How did "great photographs" via Diana cameras sneak into the discussion? Evidently, just another ludicrous Devil's Advocate ploy.

[Michael R]

I have a 16 by something Diana - the type Carleton Watkins used I think.

[Tin Can]

Thank you for your consistant expertise


I have a 16 by something Diana - the type Carleton Watkins used I think.

[Torontoamateur]

This seems to be another of those threads in which the originator appears at first to be asking questions but is really looking for validation of a pre-existing mindset. Don’t waste your time arguing over TXP. We’ve got other crap to argue over lol.

Your personal attack on me is unwarranted and ungentlemanly

Regards

Toronto Amateur

[Torontoamateur]

In responding to the the many and building personal attacks made very directly to y thread I will reply

I have and continue to use TMax 400 and Tmax100 in 8x10 and 4x5.. I really like my FP4 in 8x10 and the HP5 in my 8x10 and 11x14. I have used hundreds of sheets. I have much in stock and at any one time have 20 8x10 holders filled with Ilford.

I am not the "lover of Tri X. I have used it occassionally. It is expensive. I am thrying to find out from tri x users what their experience is. Yet this inquiry which I am hoping would be focused has yeilder several prsonal attacks and disparaging remarks.

Basically there are photogs who are " In Love" with Tri x . I am not one of those. I had hoped there was a Tri X photog who would explain the attraction to Tri X.

Yet it seems there are not any Tri X photos responding.

The users of the Tmax have bee very protective and frankly Haughty in their views. Somewhat intolerant of the idea of the use of any other emulsion.

They should open their eyes and try the Ilford. Or dare I suggest ... ADOX !

Yes I really like Adox. it is for me the top emulsion. Maybe its the Climate up here north the 49th Parallel. The air is clear, Our society is based on Tolerance and Diversity. Exploring the vast geography and multlitude of cultures in Canada. In Toronto the courts recognize 47 languages and dialects.

Delighting in the culinary delights of Poutine and Maple Syrup on everything. Have you tried a bacon relish with a Maple Sugar base note? Then you have not lived.

Tri X is now on order. I will make my Own interpretation. In fact the wholesale barrage of disgust for Tri X has made it an Underdog. And We Canadians love Underdogs. Again that is our culture.

I know it will not disappoint, It ill be an adventure. Yielding Contact prints on Adox paper. Wet darkroom enlargement on Ilford Paper exposed under my Durst 184. Sloshed in Dektol. Such a sea of diversity and Wonder

Well I have to get to Breakfast. The sun is up and its a new day. Sunny and a high of 26 Centigrade is expected. Yes in Canada we measure in Celcius. It beed the Law for decades to emphasis the differences we have .

Regards

[jnantz]

My memory might be off. But I seem to recall that when Tri-X came out, its main attractiveness was the fast 400 ASA speed.

it had 7 stop latitude and grain when they improved it over the years they got rid of some of these benefits.

[Tin Can]

I have no opinion

The 11X14 10 boxes of 10 sealed sheets in OE box

Is for my DIY education

The price was right for me at that time

Telling me and OP we are wasting something

Is wrong

Do not Covet

I used X-Ray for years to learn

even as ridicule was mounting

[BrianShaw]

My memory might be off. But I seem to recall that when Tri-X came out, its main attractiveness was the fast 400 ASA speed.

Memory is close; very close! When Tri-X originally came out it was 200 ASA (daylight)/ 160 ASA (Tungsten), which was a high-speed film in those days. AS you probably know, the change to the film speed, from 200 to 400, was not a result of any changes to the film but change to how film speed was computed. :)

[BrianShaw]

In responding to the the many and building personal attacks made very directly to y thread I will reply

I have and continue to use TMax 400 and Tmax100 in 8x10 and 4x5.. I really like my FP4 in 8x10 and the HP5 in my 8x10 and 11x14. I have used hundreds of sheets. I have much in stock and at any one time have 20 8x10 holders filled with Ilford.

I am not the "lover of Tri X. I have used it occassionally. It is expensive. I am thrying to find out from tri x users what their experience is. Yet this inquiry which I am hoping would be focused has yeilder several prsonal attacks and disparaging remarks.

Basically there are photogs who are " In Love" with Tri x . I am not one of those. I had hoped there was a Tri X photog who would explain the attraction to Tri X.

Yet it seems there are not any Tri X photos responding.

The users of the Tmax have bee very protective and frankly Haughty in their views. Somewhat intolerant of the idea of the use of any other emulsion.

They should open their eyes and try the Ilford. Or dare I suggest ... ADOX !

Yes I really like Adox. it is for me the top emulsion. Maybe its the Climate up here north the 49th Parallel. The air is clear, Our society is based on Tolerance and Diversity. Exploring the vast geography and multlitude of cultures in Canada. In Toronto the courts recognize 47 languages and dialects.

Delighting in the culinary delights of Poutine and Maple Syrup on everything. Have you tried a bacon relish with a Maple Sugar base note? Then you have not lived.

Tri X is now on order. I will make my Own interpretation. In fact the wholesale barrage of disgust for Tri X has made it an Underdog. And We Canadians love Underdogs. Again that is our culture.

I know it will not disappoint, It ill be an adventure. Yielding Contact prints on Adox paper. Wet darkroom enlargement on Ilford Paper exposed under my Durst 184. Sloshed in Dektol. Such a sea of diversity and Wonder

Well I have to get to Breakfast. The sun is up and its a new day. Sunny and a high of 26 Centigrade is expected. Yes in Canada we measure in Celcius. It beed the Law for decades to emphasis the differences we have .

Regards

Perhaps this tells you something...

And I understand your frustration, but rather than stating "not any responding", you might want to look at Sal's post, with a Tri-X picture. ;)

Good luck and much enjoyment to your your exploration of, both, Canada and Tri-X.

[Alan Klein]

Memory is close; very close! When Tri-X originally came out it was 200 ASA (daylight)/ 160 ASA (Tungsten), which was a high-speed film in those days. AS you probably know, the change to the film speed, from 200 to 400, was not a result of any changes to the film but change to how film speed was computed. :)

Brian I didn't shoot it myself. I was a chrome and negative color shooter with my 35mm's. The special attractiveness for 35mm shooters with Tri-X is not necessarily needing a flash, great for street and some indoor pictures. That's when heavy glass with 50mm lens down to f/1.4 became really popular to combine with the high speed of Tri-X.

[Alan Klein]

Replying to Alan, I shoot both TMY100 and TMX400. The faster version is obviously better for large format usage with its smaller f-stops, especially on windy days. But I shoot it in all formats from 35mm to 8x10, and process it in PMK pryro. The 100 speed product is ideal for Med Format usage which needs a higher degree of enlargement. But I have to resort to a different developer to get comparable edge effect. I keep quite a bit of TMX100 sheet film on hand for technical darkroom usage (masks, internegatives, color separation negs, etc), so some of that inevitably gets used for generally shooting too. I have to ration my 8X10 TMY400 sheets more circumspectly, because I have less of it, and it's getting expensive to replace.

Otherwise, is my memory getting off, and is this no longer the Large Format forum? How did "great photographs" via Diana cameras sneak into the discussion? Evidently, just another ludicrous Devil's Advocate ploy.

I've been experimenting with both Tmax 100 and 400 with my new 4x5. The wind and smaller f stops needed recommend Tmax 400 as you suggested. I might just settle on that although I still shoot medium format but probably will stick with chromes when I shoot MF especially since Velvia 50 is no longer made in 4x5 (although I have two boxes of it frozen).

[BrianShaw]

Brian I didn't shoot it myself. I was a chrome and negative color shooter with my 35mm's. The special attractiveness for 35mm shooters with Tri-X is not necessarily needing a flash, great for street and some indoor pictures. That's when heavy glass with 50mm lens down to f/1.4 became really popular to combine with the high speed of Tri-X.

Yep... me neither. I tried it back in the 1980's, mostly out of peer pressure, but never really needed the speed so stuck with Verichrome and Plus-X for B&W. In the chill chest I have a bunch of vintage (not sure how old, though) 120 Tri-x that I'm saving for a future project when I want wrapper offset damage to my images. I still shoot medium speed filmalmost exlusively inB&W and color neg. Gave up on chrome when getting prints made from the became difficult and, especially, when my local lab stopped their 3-hour turnaround service. LOL

[Alan Townsend]

Your personal attack on me is unwarranted and ungentlemanly

Regards

Toronto Amateur

Toronto Amateur,

Sorry if your offended by all these mean people. I know what you mean. This board takes me back to the era of bulletin boards before the internet took off, and of UseNet 25 years ago, kind of like the wild and wooly west, or the land west of the Pecos. To Americans, this means no laws or rules. There is good here as well as bad, so stay strong.

Personally, I love Canadians. My mom and her family were and are Canadians, and I remember all the times we visited them. Never liked the cigarettes or beer up there but loved the maple syrup and bacon. Where I live now, I am surrounded by huge maple trees.

In the mid to late 1970's, I did use Tri-x in 5x7 quite a bit and it was my favorite. In the late 1960's I used Royal x at 1000 Ei in my high school Crown Graphic 4x5 because of its speed. Today, the high cost of any Kodak films is ruled out. Honestly, I don't care for the Kodak tabular grain emulsions very much, although I used them a lot in 35mm. The horrible pink magenta or whatever dye and the flat tonal response leaves the midtones uninspiringly low contrast and boring. They curl up worst of any films in memory.

Today, I'm stuck using Frankenstein 200 (rebadged Fomapan 200 likely tabular), Fuji HR-U x-ray film, and ortho litho film in 4x5, but followed this thread for historical reasons. Good for you that you can make choices between Kodak films. Canadians are more closely akin to the British than Americans, so I would think Ilford would be your best bet anyway.

Cheers,

Alan Townsend

[BrianShaw]

Ummmm.... Canadians ARE Americans, also; albeit they may prefer to be refered to as North Americans. ;)

Since we're loving on Canada... 50% of my ancestors, including a few recent ones, were Canadians. They were all nice people.

[Michael R]

We're America Jr.

[Drew Wiley]

Alan - The anti-halation dye or "pink" of TMax easily washes totally out. Non-issue, even with the earliest versions of TMax. "Flat tonal response"???? That equates to underdevelopment, plain and simple. So please don't transfer an incomplete learning curve, way back when, into an unwarranted stereotype.

[faberryman]

Alan - The anti-halation dye or "pink" of TMax easily washes totally out. Non-issue, even with the earliest versions of TMax. "Flat tonal response"???? That equates to underdevelopment, plain and simple. So please don't transfer an incomplete learning curve, way back when, into an unwarranted stereotype.

We certainly wouldn't want any unwarranted stereotypes.

[paulbarden]

Tri X is now on order. I will make my Own interpretation. In fact the wholesale barrage of disgust for Tri X has made it an Underdog. And We Canadians love Underdogs.

I don't think anybody here expressed "disgust for Tri-X". You're fantasizing now.

[Drew Wiley]

I love what many photographers have done with Tri-X, both journalistically with 35mm cameras, and in terms of large format contact prints, even enlargements sometimes. It's just not a film I find particularly compatible with my own style or needs.

[Tin Can]

We have no idea what your needs are

very secretive as many are here



I love what many photographers have done with Tri-X, both journalistically with 35mm cameras, and in terms of large format contact prints, even enlargements sometimes. It's just not a film I find particularly compatible with my own style or needs.

[bob carnie]

Ummmm.... Canadians ARE Americans, also; albeit they may prefer to be refered to as North Americans. ;)

Since we're loving on Canada... 50% of my ancestors, including a few recent ones, were Canadians. They were all nice people.

You have never met me in person.... most people think I am an a hole.

[Tin Can]

i knew that!

me too




You have never met me in person.... most people think I am an a hole.

[Drew Wiley]

No alt printer can be all that evil (except Mortensen).

[Alan Townsend]

Alan - The anti-halation dye or "pink" of TMax easily washes totally out. Non-issue, even with the earliest versions of TMax. "Flat tonal response"???? That equates to underdevelopment, plain and simple. So please don't transfer an incomplete learning curve, way back when, into an unwarranted stereotype.

Drew Wiley,

I do not like TMax films. This is personal preference. The dye does not wash out easily, it requires additional steps and leaves a curly mess of a film that won't lie flat. This reduces sharpness more than the low granularity increases it.

Flat tonal response means a nearly linear H&D curve. I prefer films with a more traditional curve, which gives more contrast in the midtones and less in the shadows and highlights. I also appreciate a little more grain as well.

I recently read an article online that said Tmax is more like digital than other films. When I read that, I thought for a while and realized it was true, and that was why I don't like either one. It was after I started using Tmax, scanning negatives, and printing digitally, that I quit photography. I don't like digital because its too easy and I love chemicals. I have a chemical addiction to photography.

Our eye/brain systems do not see micromesh like pixel arrays because there's nothing like that in nature and therefore no need. We see film grain because it's organic, just like the sensors in our maculas. In film, the sensors are the randomly sized and shaped grains that are not noise but signal. In digital, we know there are tiny arrays of pixels, but never see those pixels on the print. I wonder why there all the confusion.

Going off topic briefly, in my digital pictures, I want to see the pixels the same way as in my film photography I want to see the grain. Otherwise, how do I know they are sharp?

Regards,

Alan Townsend

[Tin Can]

I respect your thinking.

Organic in process


Drew Wiley,

I do not like TMax films. This is personal preference. The dye does not wash out easily, it requires additional steps and leaves a curly mess of a film that won't lie flat. This reduces sharpness more than the low granularity increases it.

Flat tonal response means a nearly linear H&D curve. I prefer films with a more traditional curve, which gives more contrast in the midtones and less in the shadows and highlights. I also appreciate a little more grain as well.

I recently read an article online that said Tmax is more like digital than other films. When I read that, I thought for a while and realized it was true, and that was why I don't like either one. It was after I started using Tmax, scanning negatives, and printing digitally, that I quit photography. I don't like digital because its too easy and I love chemicals. I have a chemical addiction to photography.

Our eye/brain systems do not see micromesh like pixel arrays because there's nothing like that in nature and therefore no need. We see film grain because it's organic, just like the sensors in our maculas. In film, the sensors are the randomly sized and shaped grains that are not noise but signal. In digital, we know there are tiny arrays of pixels, but never see those pixels on the print. I wonder why there all the confusion.

Going off topic briefly, in my digital pictures, I want to see the pixels the same way as in my film photography I want to see the grain. Otherwise, how do I know they are sharp?

Regards,

Alan Townsend

[Michael R]

Alan Townsend,

Since you’ve indicated you are more interested in objective science than belief systems, you really need to seek out better quality information.

[Tin Can]

Stop it

[Richard Wasserman]

We like what we like, it's all good and we don't need to justify artistic choices. I've ordered a box of 4x5 Tr-x to compare it to TMY-2 that I have been using for many years. Should be interesting—who knows where it will lead

[Oren Grad]

S/N is now << 1.