320 tri-x vs. 400 tri-x in 120 size

[Kevin Crisp]

I'm going to be using some roll film in my view camera for the first time in a long time. Practically speaking, what is the difference between these two? There seem to be large differences in recommended development times. Thanks in advance!

[Oren Grad]

Kevin, they're completely different films. Giving them both the name "Tri-X" was really perverse.

The ISO 400 emulsion is the same as 35mm TX - that is, it has a gentle shoulder which helps tame highlights and makes it a very versatile and forgiving film in all kinds of lighting - lots of latitude in shooting, relatively easy to print with a full range of tones. The ISO 320 emulsion is comparable to sheet film Tri-X, and features an upswept characteristic curve that enhances highlight separation at the expense of shadow detail. In general, it's much more difficult to obtain a "full information" print under a wide range of lighting conditions from a TXP (320) negative than it is from a TX (400) negative, though the current generation of VC papers, most of which have fairly long toes, mitigates this to some extent.

Which is right for you depends on your taste in tonality and your patience for darkroom calisthenics. For my taste, TX defines what a film should be; I'll use TXP only under duress.

[Oren Grad]

I guess in this day and age I should add, in case it wasn't obvious, that I'm evaluating the two films strictly from the perspective of someone who prints exclusively the old-fashioned way, on silver paper, and who prefers an unexciting life in the darkroom.

I have no idea whether one or the other scans better if you intend the negative as entry point to a digital printing workflow.

[Andre Noble]

It's a pity that Kodak doesn't make sheet film in the Tri-X 400 or Plus-X because I haven't figure out the Tri-X 320 yet.

I shot the Tri X 320 and developed in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100. Negatives came out relatively flat compared to about six other traditional ilford and kodak film I shot and developed under identical circumstances. In future, I may try 1:2:100. I'm sure ther's ways to get this film to work, and that many do.

[sanking]

It's a pity that Kodak doesn't make sheet film in the Tri-X 400 or Plus-X because I haven't figure out the Tri-X 320 yet.

I shot the Tri X 320 and developed in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100. Negatives came out relatively flat compared to about six other traditional ilford and kodak film I shot and developed under identical circumstances. In future, I may try 1:2:100. I'm sure ther's ways to get this film to work, and that many do.

Andre,

I would recommend the 2:2:100 dilution of of Pyrocat-HD for TRI-X 320, assuming you are printing with VC silver papers. About 9 minutes at 72F with rotary agitation should give you plenty of contrast. Increase time to 11-12 minutes for shuffle agitation in tray.

This combination will give you the very up-sweeping curve oren mentioned earlier, but if you are printing with silver VC papers the color of the stain in the highlights will cause slight shouldering on the print, in effect compensating for the up-sweep of the film curve.

If you happen to be printing with palldium or platinum the up-sweeping curve is a wonderful thing because it compensates for the highlight shouldering you see with these processes. I suspect that this is one of the reasons some palladium and platinum printers are so fond of TRI-X 320.

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

TXP is an excellent film, and I have no trouble getting easy-printing negs from it. I shoot a lot of it in 220, 4x5 and 8x10. Like any film, one must understand its curve, and scale one's negs to one's printing paper in order to use it effectively. Exposure and choice of developer can have an enormous impact on the tonality of the resulting negatives, and the choice of printing paper can also be very influential. Exposed at EI 320, developed in 510-Pyro, and printed on Kentmere Kentona in PC-130 makes for absolutely glowing portraits. I also get beautiful results from Secret Sauce @ EI 160, and from PC-TEA @ EI 250. I should add that I shoot mainly portraits, and choose my lighting accordingly, and understand that very high contrast scenes require a different approach.

Jay

[Lee S]

Anyone using HC110 dilution B with txp 320? Just purchased a box and have not tested for speed or developing time.
Lee

[Joseph O'Neil]

Anyone using HC110 dilution B with txp 320? Just purchased a box and have not tested for speed or developing time.
Lee


Almost. I use half strength Dil-B for my TXP-320. My formula for 4x5 film, Trix-x 320: I shoot all my Tri-X 320 at 200 asa, develop in a Jobo 2500 drum, presoak for 5 minutes, I mix 10ml "pure syrup" of HC-110 in 600ml distilled water, develop for roughly 10 minutes on a rotary base ( I add or take away, depending on my own mubled interpretation of the zone system :) ).

If you are using trays or hangers & tanks, Dil-B is fien for Tri-x 320, but in a rotary base, Dil B will, IMO, burn your negatives on you.

Your milate will vary - my advice is to "waste" a few sheets of film on test shots until you get a feel for the film. Taking a few notes when you first start, of what you subject was, lighting, exposure, etc, is a great way to learn wiht a new film too.

good luck
joe

[BrianShaw]

It's a pity that Kodak doesn't make sheet film in the Tri-X 400 or Plus-X because I haven't figure out the Tri-X 320 yet.

They used to make Plus-X sheet film. That's all I used until the yokels in Rochester stopped making it. Please excuse me so I can go have a good cry (again).

[Lee S]

Thanks Joe for your helpful reply. I have already tried development re manufactures recomendations. Extremely contrasty. Since it was a test There was no harm done.I am going to use a weaker delusion and another test.
Lee

[Ben Calwell]

I use TXP (rated at ISO 200) developed in HC 110 diluted 1:15 from the stock solution, not the syrup. My normal development time is 9 minutes at 68 degrees in trays.

[PViapiano]

TXP is a wonderful film once you get used to its characteristics, although I didn't have a problem with it first time out with 120 format. The thing is to stay away from the listed, very short dev times, hence the use of higher dilutions such as the unofficial Dilution H. For medium format, I use "H" and just double the listed times, which works great and is a good starting point. From there you can experiment with agitation (vigorous, gentle, semi-stand, etc) to alter contrast. It "pulls" beautifully and I've found the negatives scan with no problems.

I tend to take it easy with agitation, in order to control contrast if the brightness range of my scenes require it.

I'm looking forward to shooting some in 4x5 and tray developing later today...

Here's an example (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/164009616/in/set-72157594181176569/) of one of my pulled negative experiments...

[renes]

Does someone develop Tri-X 320 in D-76? How results you got?
I would like to use this combo for landscape and wonder if calibrate them for ZS.

[hmf]

Does someone develop Tri-X 320 in D-76? How results you got?
I would like to use this combo for landscape and wonder if calibrate them for ZS.

Didn't I read ssomewhere that this film has been discontinued? I'd check this out before getting too involved.

[renes]

That's right it has been discontinued but I have 50 rolls in my fridge and probably will get soon 100 rolls more. It should be enough for a few years. The question is actual. Thanks.

[Mark Sampson]

Well, just about any film made works well in D-76. My experience with D-76 in all formats and with many films suggests that D-76 is best used as a one-shot developer at a 1:1 dilution. Run your tests starting at EI 200 and good results will not be far off.

[Stephen Benskin]

You can categorize the different films by their toe. TX400 has a normal toe. TX320 or the former TXP has a long toe, and TX4x5 is in between. I remember a Kodak brochure calling TXP a studio film. Studio conditions present lower flare than exterior. Since flare affects the shadows most, the results using the "flatter" toe of TX320 under studio conditions will produce similar local contrast in the shadows as using the more normal toe in the higher flare conditions associated with exterior shooting.

[EdWorkman]

If you can get a copy of Henry's "Controls in B&W Photography", take a look at the curve he found in his tests. And then there's a Howard Bond portfolio of pics of white houses in the Greek Isles, in an old issue of Phot Techniques [ in one of its many titles]. My point being that TXP has an amazing power to separate highlight values.
Long toe but a steepening curve forever upward

[Stephen Benskin]

I've attached a comparison of TXP and TX processed to the same CI. The curves have been adjusted to compensate for speed differences for an easier comparison.