View Full Version : New Tri-X

John Kasaian
29-Sep-2003, 14:09
I just got back from the local camera store with a box of the new emulsion TriX in 4x5. As Desi Arnaz would say: "Is too 'spensive, Loocy!" Maybe I'm spoiled by Freestyle, Photo Warehouse and J and C but a 100% more is a lot of money, even allowing for the cost of doing business with a local retailer. What I want to report however, is that the new emulsion is available in 4x5 and (conga drum roll, please) 25, count 'em twenty five sheet boxes!

Now to see how it does in HC-110!


John Cook
29-Sep-2003, 14:55
After you finish development, "You have some 'splaining to do".

tim atherton
29-Sep-2003, 14:58
100% more than...? The old Tri-X?

Christopher Condit
29-Sep-2003, 15:45
Not to be rude or anything, but why did you buy it if it costs too much?

Ralph Barker
29-Sep-2003, 16:20
You're a real trooper, John. Buying the new Tri-X just to test it for those stil buying Kodak film, even though it's too 'spensive. ;-)

Have you thought of doing a notch-to-notch comparison to HP5+?

John Kasaian
29-Sep-2003, 18:07
Why did I buy it? Because expensive 4x5 film is cheaper than expensive 8x10 film and if it is not to my liking, at least I'll only have whats left of 25 sheets of the stuff instead of 50(besides, shooting 8x10 has numbed me into buck a sheet film). As to a comparison between the new tri-x and HP-5+(actually I've only got the Freestyle version in 5x7 on hand) any recommendations as to what testing proceedures I should use? Targets of varied contrasts maybe? My Agfa has both 5x7 and 4x5 backs, so I could use both emulsions with the same lens. Keep in mind my "lab" is my 5 year old daughter's Barbie-esque bathroom and most of my gear older than W.C. Handy's composition "Beale Street Blues."

John Kasaian
29-Sep-2003, 21:35
Sorry for the vagueness. I paid 26.15+tax retail at a local store for 25 sheets of the new Tri-X. Thats slightly twice as much as 400 ISO film costs from Freestyle, Photo Warehouse, and maybe J and C too. I don't remember what 4x5 Tri-X was the last time I looked. I think the last 8x10 box of Tri-X I bought was around $140 for 50 sheets from B and H.-----Cheers!

Mark Muse
30-Sep-2003, 05:03
re: "my "lab" is my 5 year old daughter's Barbie-esque bathroom"

Are you not aware of the toxicity of some of these chemicals? And children are often even more sensitive than adults.

John Kasaian
30-Sep-2003, 08:11

FWIW, I don't store or mix chemicals in Barbie-land but load/unload holders and the unicolor drums. The only chemicals I take in there are for developing prints and Barbie-land gets a thorough scrubbing after.

Ralph Barker
30-Sep-2003, 09:39
What I've found helpful for me in the past, John, is to shoot a range of things that are typical for my work/style, but keep as much of the comparitive testing procedure the same for each of the films as possible or practical - same lens, film size, filters, composition, etc. That way, direct comparisons between how each film handles elements within that particular scene can be made. I've tried to keep the variations limited to exposure, as required by any speed difference, and development time, but using the same developer.

That simple approach leaves some testing-procedure holes, however. Developer "X" might not be optimal for both films, for example. But, it's a quick and easy way to examine the characteristics of the films being tested so an assessment can be made as to which is preferred. Or better, which is preferred for certain types of images or circumstances.

Ed Pierce
3-Oct-2003, 09:57
To test a film with my 4x5 I load all the holders with my standard film on one side and the film to be tested on the other. This makes it easy to make identical shots in the field; all I have to do is adjust for the speed difference.

Then I proof them together, and tweak the speed rating/ dev time of the new film to try and match the speed and contrast of the standard.

This has worked to some extent; but I'm finding that to really see the differences between films, they have to be printed to final size. Proofs don't really cut it. I guess my dad was right - there are no shortcuts.

For me the really hard part is deciding what's better. There's so many variables. Chasing them all down would become a career in itself. I've been testing BFP in PMK next to TX in HC110 for eight months now and, although I'm tired of running two separate processes, I can't decide which I like better enough to settle on for a while. Now I'm finally on my last box of the old TX, have a few hundred sheets of the new TX on hand...oh bother. I'd rather be photographing.