Differences Between Tri-X 400 and Tri-X 320

Printable View

7-Dec-2019, 19:35
braxus

Differences Between Tri-X 400 and Tri-X 320

I have only used the 400 version of Tri-X, as I know the 320 version is only on sheet films. I also know the 320 version is more typical for studio use. But how does the look of the two films differ, depending on subject matter? Is it only meant for studio flash use, or can it be used in natural lighting as well? What does it look like if used outdoors? My only other option is to use TMAX 400 which is available in 4x5 and 8x10.
7-Dec-2019, 20:03
interneg

Re: Differences Between Tri-X 400 and Tri-X 320

Quote:

Originally Posted by braxus

I have only used the 400 version of Tri-X, as I know the 320 version is only on sheet films. I also know the 320 version is more typical for studio use. But how does the look of the two films differ, depending on subject matter? Is it only meant for studio flash use, or can it be used in natural lighting as well? What does it look like if used outdoors? My only other option is to use TMAX 400 which is available in 4x5 and 8x10.

Take a look at Kodak F4017 & the characteristic curves contained within. Simply put, TXP 320 has a softer toe & later highlight compression than TX - thus somewhat more in the direction of the 'look' of HP5+. Yes, you can use it outdoors, the studio designation is more from the era of harder light sources (tungsten fresnels etc) than softboxes.
7-Dec-2019, 20:12
braxus

Re: Differences Between Tri-X 400 and Tri-X 320

So the look is not all that different then HP5+ then? I liked Tri-X for its harder look and still give decent enough mid tones. HP5+ to me has mid tones, but not that contrastier hard look. Im not sure how TMAX 400 differs, as I haven't used the new version of that film yet?
7-Dec-2019, 20:26
interneg

Re: Differences Between Tri-X 400 and Tri-X 320

Quote:

Originally Posted by braxus

So the look is not all that different then HP5+ then? I liked Tri-X for its harder look and still give decent enough mid tones. HP5+ to me has mid tones, but not that contrastier hard look. Im not sure how TMAX 400 differs, as I haven't used the new version of that film yet?

It's not that simple - colour sensitivity comes into this too - I generally prefer Kodak's colour rendering to Ilford's (I personally quite dislike FP4+ in some circumstances). How you process is also a factor & you can make TXP quite brutally punchy if you want.
7-Dec-2019, 21:23
Alan9940

Re: Differences Between Tri-X 400 and Tri-X 320

I have used Tri-X 320 outdoors for 40 years; works fine! Personally, I like the tonal rendering of Tri-X 320 vs HP-5. Never really warmed up to the TMax films, though I do like the 400 version better than the 100.
7-Dec-2019, 23:08
eli

Re: Differences Between Tri-X 400 and Tri-X 320

Tri-x 320 was, if no now, available in 120, I still have several old rolls.

D-76 1:1 or HC110 Dil.H are my favorites for this film.
9-Dec-2019, 15:56
Drew Wiley

Re: Differences Between Tri-X 400 and Tri-X 320

The grain structure is completely different. Apples to apples in pyro, you get "watercolor grain" with HP5 - enhanced edge acutance but softly blended in between, whereas with TX320 you get what I call "shotgun grain", highly obvious in the midtones but really more angular than round buckshot. TMax400 dramatically differs from either, having a far longer straight line way down into the shadows, greater contrast manipulation possibilities, very fine grain combined with excellent acutance; somewhat different spectral sensitivity too. TMax can be enlarged substantially more than the other two films without exhibiting either grain or very fine detail loss. These films have quite different personalities.