Tri-X or T-Max.

[Ektagraphic]

Hello- Thanks for all of your help around here guiding me through my first steps through the woods of large format :). I was wondering if Tri-X 320 or either of the T-Max films are better all purpose 4X5 films. I have read that Tri-X 320 can be very touchy when shooting 120. I love the Tri-X 400 for most applications so I was wondering if the 320 in 4X5 is similar to the 400 or if I should look into T-Max.
Thanks

[Professional]

Are those films so expensive to buy? if not then buy one of each and use them all, at the end you will have good results by all and then you can decide which one do you prefer more.
I still don't have Large Format, but i bought Tri-X and T-Max [120] rolls to use with medium format and later will see which one is better for different applications.

[BarryS]

Both are great films , so it's a matter of taste. I prefer TMY-2 (the current TMAX 400) because it's less grainy and has a linear tonal scale. Some people hate the linear tonal scale. The TMAX films are a little trickier to correctly expose and develop. Buy a box of both and test because there's no way to say one is better than the other.

[Lenny Eiger]

Hello- Thanks for all of your help around here guiding me through my first steps through the woods of large format :). I was wondering if Tri-X 320 or either of the T-Max films are better all purpose 4X5 films. I have read that Tri-X 320 can be very touchy when shooting 120. I love the Tri-X 400 for most applications so I was wondering if the 320 in 4X5 is similar to the 400 or if I should look into T-Max.
Thanks

Can't really answer anything until we know the following:

How are you going to print the images? Traditional darkroom, scan and inkjet, something else? Are you a contrasty or soft printer?

Why not consider other alternatives, such as Ilford?

Lenny

[William McEwen]

Tri-X.

[BetterSense]

I was stuck on this myself. I like TMY, but I'm not sure if I can make it my "everything" film. I like 400TX, but I can't get that in 4x5 sheets and I've never used TXP. I ended up going for HP5+ and I've been using that for now. Now that it's gotten more expensive I might try a box of of TXP out.

[jp]

Tri-x is said to be a little more forgiving and it does seem to be for underexposure compared to tmy. TMY and TMY2 handle overexposure quite well. Both are highly forgiving compared to slide film or digital.

TMY and now TMY2 are finer grained/sharper, which isn't so big a deal in 4x5 compared to the other smaller formats. I personally am more comfortable with the TMY/TMY2 because I've used tmax 400 for 20+ years now and have a good feel for it from lots of 35mm shooting and processing. Tri-x pan was far too grainy for my taste at 35mm sizes. My preference has until recently put me in the minority.

[Stefan Findel]

If reciprocity is a consideration (1/2 sec and longer) TMY is much better, you don't have to think about it until exposure times of ca. 10 sec. And it takes a lot of exposure, even a zone 12 will still be printable.

[Ektagraphic]

Well, I will do a traditional darkroom process with the films. I was leaning to the Tri-X and I think that is what I will go with...I would try them both as someone reccomended but that gets expensive since they are only available in boxes of 50 sheets and I think that it will take a while to go throught a box of 50.....

[Professional]

WOW if that $50-60 is expensive, i thought one box of 50 sheets will be over $100, so with $100 i can buy about 2 boxes ;) :D

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=335&N=4294540463+4294950522+4291384683

[Ektagraphic]

For someone that has shot 35mm for a long time, $1 per exposure is slightly expensive when you compare the two.

[Lenny Eiger]

For someone that has shot 35mm for a long time, $1 per exposure is slightly expensive when you compare the two.

Yes, but you get more. I would say that I have noticed that Photography is a very expensive addiction.

Lenny

[Jack Dahlgren]

For someone that has shot 35mm for a long time, $1 per exposure is slightly expensive when you compare the two.

Yep. And you are still at the cheaper side of large format w/ 4x5 B&W.

I think that it will take about 50 sheets to figure out your basic exposure, development and printing - especially if the camera and lens is new to you. Once you have those major variables under control you will be in a much better position to start experimenting with different films.

Tri-x and Tmax and Ilford HP5+ are ALL excellent films. Don't worry about starting with the "wrong" one.

[Bruce Watson]

I was wondering if Tri-X 320 or either of the T-Max films are better all purpose 4X5 films.

TMY-2 (aka 400Tmax) is the only B&W film I use any more. I used Tri-X for more years than I can count. After trying TMY-2 I didn't even finish the box of Tri-X I had already opened. What more need I say?

[Bruce A Cahn]

Tri-X 400

[Lenny Eiger]

Tri-X is grainier than TMax. Both are good films, both are as capable of producing a result that you would like, with different development strategies. It's up to you....

I would imagine they sell more TMax than Tri-X, altho' I have no real knowledge, its just a guess. (If someone knows please correct me.) Therefore I would say that TMax might have a longer life in their product line. (Might.)

Lenny

[k_redder]

I vote for TMY-2. I just recently got back into LF photography after 20+ years and when i did, I decided that I'd try using a "new" film (TMY-2 developed in Tmax RS). I've been very happy with the results so far. But I was really sold when I decided to make some prints from some old negatives that were made with Tri-X (in HC-110) and I saw how different the "look" of the film is. I never thought that I'd be able to see that much of a difference, but the difference is huge! Everybody's style/tastes are different so your mileage may vary, but to my eye TMY-2 was the winner hands down.

[David Beal]

Ilford has long said that its Delta films are better for architecture and landscapes than for portraiture because of the perceived difference in mid-tones. TMY-1 and TMY-2 are new technology films and they might behave the same way.

I like TXP 320 for indoor portraiture. I like HP5+ outdoors, but I really wish that old Tri-X was available in sheets.

Make the investment. Buy a box of TXP and a box of TMY-2 and decide for yourself.

Good shooting.

[BetterSense]

I wish I could get 400TX is sheets. I've never used TXP at all, but at least I've used TMY.

[CharlesWest]

You can go through a box of 50 in a single shooting session with a model. I shoot almost exclusively T-Max 400 shooting indoors or outdoors with models, and T-Max 100 for landscapes. T-Max 100 does NOT contact print well (alt processes). T-Max 400 contact prints are legendary. Guess it depends what you're going to do with them. I'm really not a fan of Tri-X.

[Lenny Eiger]

T-Max 100 does NOT contact print well (alt processes). T-Max 400 contact prints are legendary. Guess it depends what you're going to do with them. I'm really not a fan of Tri-X.

I don't think you can make such a general statement. One can develop TMax 100 to the same quality as other films. It's a matter of developer choice, development time and consistency, just like anything else. I tested a lot of film this past year, and all the top brands work well. They are all able to render the most subtle detail and most subtle tonal shifts. There should be no issue with making wonderful contact prints.

Lenny

[Bruce A Cahn]

T Max 100 is a film you try to avoid because it does not have the tonal range of Tri-X. I would only use it for 8x10 or bigger enlargements from 35mm negatives. For sheet film, Tri-X is the one to use. Too bad they don't make it in 400 speed. The new Tri-X 400 is a great film. The old 320 not as good, but still one of the best sheet films, especially if shot at around 160 and pulled.

[Don Hutton]

T Max 100 is a film you try to avoid because it does not have the tonal range of Tri-X. I would only use it for 8x10 or bigger enlargements from 35mm negatives. For sheet film, Tri-X is the one to use. Too bad they don't make it in 400 speed. The new Tri-X 400 is a great film. The old 320 not as good, but still one of the best sheet films, especially if shot at around 160 and pulled.What is the "tonal range" you're referring to here? Are you talking about the straight line part of the film curve in a particular developer?

[D. Bryant]

I don't think you can make such a general statement. One can develop TMax 100 to the same quality as other films. It's a matter of developer choice, development time and consistency, just like anything else. I tested a lot of film this past year, and all the top brands work well. They are all able to render the most subtle detail and most subtle tonal shifts. There should be no issue with making wonderful contact prints.

Lenny

FYI, Kodak added a UV blocking coating on the back of TMAX 100 a few years back making the film unusable for direct contact printing with ALT processes. When TMY-2 was created Kodak was petitioned to omit the coating to allow it to be used for alt printing and they complied. I beleive Michael Kadilac <sp?> here on the list was involved with that development.

Don Bryant

[Lenny Eiger]

FYI, Kodak added a UV blocking coating on the back of TMAX 100 a few years back making the film unusable for direct contact printing with ALT processes. When TMY-2 was created Kodak was petitioned to omit the coating to allow it to be used for alt printing and they complied. I beleive Michael Kadilac <sp?> here on the list was involved with that development.

Don Bryant

I stand corrected on the UV coating. I was unaware of this... and thanks to everyone for updating me.

However- I did a lot of tonal tests range with different film this year. I used Efke, FP4, TMax 100 and 400 and Delta. I did real world testing with an image with a very delicate gray ramp, a glass sphere that had every subtle level of gray one could imagine. All the films produced a similar level of sensitivity. This was not what I was expecting. I was expecting to see traditional films like the Efke outperform them all. It just didn't happen, they were all good.

Lenny

[lenicolas]

tri-x seems to print easier (enlarger prints) than t-max,
however, I like the better definition of t-max.
And tmax pushes to 800iso WAY better than tri-x 320.
Actualy, it pushes so well at some point i gave up ever exposing it at 400...
But my skies were often too white, so i'm back to 400iso.
maybe a better printer than me could take advantage of that easy push!

[Sean Galbraith]

What would people recommend when the printing is scan and large Chromira (or inkjet)? So far I've only shot TMAX100. I primarily do low/lower light architectural photography.

[lenicolas]

imo, the smaller the grain, the easier the scan. hence, tmax100 is about as good as it gets.

[Lenny Eiger]

imo, the smaller the grain, the easier the scan. hence, tmax100 is about as good as it gets.

Yeah, sort of. Smaller grain is better to scan, however, there are other films with grain just as small. Everything in the 25 ISO range, (Efke, e.g.) and films like Delta. At that point, the bottleneck is the dithering pattern in whatever printing app you are using, and things that are under the pattern are ok, and things that are over are not (HP5, e.g.)

That said, the earlier post about pushing it to 800 needs a bit of re-explaining, just in case people new to photography are reading this thread. One can not push film in the sense the words mean. Pushing simply means that you are 1) giving up (in your example) two stops of shadow detail. To over develop it to the 2 stop level means that you are adding contrast by developing the highlights out more. This brings it into a more normal contrast range, but you've still lost the shadow detail. Some people don't care or don't even like shadow detail, are shooting at night, whatever. Newtonian Physics reign supreme in this case.

To suggest that your skies were blown out at 800 is not correct. You could simply develop with less contrast (time) and you'd be fine. The ISO changes very little with development - in real terms. It is more useful to imagine it doesn't happen at all, that exposure and development are not related.

Then you simply control shadow detail with your exposure and contrast with development. Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.... as it were.

Lenny