Never Shot Kodak B&W in Large Format - Am I Missing Anything?

[Andre Noble]

Hello, an earlier post about lack of "Edge Markings" on Kodak 8x10 Tri X 320 had me going, "huh?" - I then realized I have never shot Kodak B&W sheet film. Ilford sheet film does not have edge markings.

Although my all time favorite emulsions are Kodak Plus X 125 and Kodak Tri-X 400, but I use Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ for sheets, preferring the forgiveness of conventional grain emulsion film.

Question: Is Kodak T Max 100 film similar in characteristics in response to pyro development to Kodak Plus X 125 - or are they completely different films?

Question: Is Kodak Tri X 320 TXP similar in response to pyro development to Kodak Tri-X 400 TX? From my limited testing, I found Kodak Tri X 320 to produce flat negatives with out door lighting. But this experience is limited.

I would like to try Kodak sheet film, hoping in T Max 100 and Tri X 320 to get the same "meaty" midtone performance from their Plus X and Tri X 400 films compared to the more "lightweight" and "technical" midtones I am getting from Ilfords FP4+ and HP5+ films. Also. I want edge markings. :)

[David de Gruyl]

I am going to let people more knowledgeable than me talk about developing...

Suffice it to say that TXP320 and Tri-X 400 are different films. They are both conventional emulsions, though.

As for T-Max: if you don't like T-grain, you won't like T-Max. it is solidly in the "new emulsion" category. In fact, it defines the category. If you do decide to try it, remember to double your fix time. (or test the clearing time on a sheet of film, or check for clearing, or whatever your process is).

I don't use pyro. I would expect Tri-X 320 to do well in it, it is similar in chemistry to Tri-X 400. Most of the differences are in spectral response.

[mikebarger]

I too use HP5+ in 4x5. I've held in my hands some outstanding prints made with T-Max.

Someday I too would like to try it, but with 700 sheets of HP5+ in the freezer I may never make it. :)

Mike

[Ken Lee]

The 5x7 Ilford HP5+ sheet film I just loaded has edge markings, and shows them on the box as well.

[David de Gruyl]

What is shown on the box is the notches. I actually have no idea whether ilford has the markings (I have not developed any yet), but Kodak Tri-X 4x5 has "KODAK 320TXP" printed on the edge with the notches. Similar to 120 or 35mm.

[Bill_1856]

Ilford sheet film does not have edge markings.

:)

How do you know which is the emulsion side to load toward the outside of the film holder?

[Robert Hughes]

How do you know which is the emulsion side to load toward the outside of the film holder?
Almost all sheet film has one or more tabs in one corner of the sheet, which you use to orient the film while loading. For example, with a film sheet oriented vertically (portrait) and the emulsion facing you, the tabs are on the top edge in the upper right hand corner.

[Stephane]

I have some kodak ultratec, no notch and no markings to help identifying the emulsion in the dark.

[SamReeves]

I love Kodak, but not it's price. I switched to Arista and haven't looked back since. ;)

[Sanjay Sen]

Ilford FP4+ (8x10) has no edge markings.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I just finished an old box of TXP which had notches, but no edge markings. Now all the Kodak film has edge marking.

I also started a box of TMY2 (Tmax 400) and I like it much better than Tri-X Professional. If I were you I'd try it before I tried Tri-X pro.

[Steve Hamley]

Roman Loranc uses Tri-X 320 in PMK, so it shouldn't hold any of us back. :rolleyes:

He talks about pyro here:

http://kqed02.streamguys.us/anon.kqed/spark/romanloran.m4v

and film here:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/dop_interviews/Roman_Loranc/RomanLoranc_20070331.mp3

Cheers, Steve

[Vaughn]

Death to film edge markings! Dang things show up in my alt process contact prints, because I like to show the film rebate. Acros is a great film -- but for the dang unneeded writing!

Okay -- I can scrap them off the film, so it ain't the end of the world, as we know and love it.

Vaughn

[Chuck Pere]

My own view of HP5 vs. Tri-x 320. Tri-x has a film curve with long toe and steeper highlight contrast. HP5 has a more "normal" curve shape. Because of this I find that TRi-x will tend to depress lower mid tones and expand higher mid tones. Adds some pop or drama to things. So I like it for things when I want a harder look. When I want a more delicate look I tend to HP5. Others may see it differently. The reality is that you can make great prints with any film.

[Drew Wiley]

Each of these films has its own distinct personality. Although I personally test almost
every one of them, many people work with only one or two films. Just depends what
you need and are willing to pay. Just finished the last of my HP5 8X10, which has
somewhat more toe than the 400TMax I am switching too. Also have FP4 and Arista
200 on hand, which are slower. The Arista has marvelous shadow separation and is
relatively cheap, but somewhat fragile in handling. You just have to study the curves, pick one film and get good with it, and then change if you're looking for
something a little different. Wonderful images can be made with all them. It's
like being a kid in a candy store.

[Andre Noble]

Death to film edge markings! Dang things show up in my alt process contact prints, because I like to show the film rebate. Acros is a great film -- but for the dang...

Vaughn

Must be a Northern California thing. :) Edge markings have become popular down here in Hollywood. Perhaps more so because film is now considered "artistic".

I have to admit, when I first saw them I thought they were pretentious. I like them now.

[Drew Wiley]

Something I forgot to mention is that Tri-X in some developers is quite grainy. This
doesn't bother some people but it doesn't endear it to me. Even modest enlargements of 4x5 to 11x14 or 16x20 can show loud grain in untextured midtones
and highlights. This is especially the case with folks who develop it the classic way,
creating a "thick" negative which is a bit overexposed and overdeveloped. This gets
the film up the curve for good shadow and midtone separation, but at the risk of
blowing out the highlights.