The new Tri-X 8x10 film

[Michael S]

Recently, I decided to see if my old freezer stored Tri-X film was still usable. I have two batches of expired film from 2008 and 2013, so I bought a new ten sheet box of 8x10 Tri-X (expiration 2021) to compare. The 2008 and 2013 films which I shot under identical conditions of the same scene were exactly alike, rich in density and of good contrast. The new Tri-X (shot at the same scene as the other two and developed exactly the same) was thin and and seemed to possess much less silver in its emulsion (what I had expected from the older films). Has anyone else experienced this with the new Tri-X film? It just doesn't seem to be the same film anymore.

[Pere Casals]

hmmm... this sounds extrange...

Do you have a shutter tester ? A possibility is an inconsistency in the shutter.

Given the price, and to waste a minimum amount of film, my next shot would be one with a 5s exposure, I'd expose with the lens cap, and I'd check again 2013 vs 2021 sheets.

There are only two kinds of reliable LF shutters, the cap shutter and the Galli shutter.

[NER]

... It just doesn't seem to be the same film anymore.

You're correct. "In 2007, Tri-X was extensively re-engineered, receiving the new designation 400TX in place of TX or TX400, and became finer-grained. The amount of silver in the film stock was reduced," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Tri-X. It is entirely possible that further modifications by Kodak after 2007 account for the difference you observed between the 2013 and the newer emulsions.

N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com

[Pere Casals]

You're correct. "In 2007, Tri-X was extensively re-engineered,

Yes... but the 2013 it had to be the re-engineered version, and anyway the new version does not deliver thin negatives

[NER]

I see on closer reading that the 2007 and 2013 emulsions were said to be "exactly alike" after identical processing. In that case there may not have been further modifications after 2007, and I may have been needlessly wrong to suggest that possibility. Your statement that "the new version does not deliver thin negatives" is a dispute with the original poster, not with me. I made no such claim, and I have no reason to think Michael S. gives us an inaccurate or misleading account of his experience which happens to be entirely consistent with the information cited in my reply. If you know better, evidence supporting your claim might be welcomed by him and anyone else reading these exchanges. I for one would certainly be grateful to learn what you know about this matter.

N. Riley
http://normanrileyphotography.com

[Drew Wiley]

Sadly, Michael has passed away.

[Sal Santamaura]

Sadly, Michael has passed away.

The only Michael I see in this thread (even after having "viewed posts" by an ignored member) is the OP, Michael S from Washington state. Are you referring to the late Michael Smith of Pennsylvania? If so, what does/did he have to do with 8x10 320TXP?

[Pere Casals]

Your statement that "the new version does not deliver thin negatives" is a dispute with the original poster, not with me. I made no such claim, and I have no reason to think Michael S. gives us an inaccurate or misleading account of his experience

Norman, there is no dispute. Both the 2013 and the 2021 are of the new version, and the 2021 was way thinner. So here we don't speak about the differences in the versions, but probably about another issue.

Also the 2008 (expiry date) may be the old emulsion and the 2013 is the new, and for OP they are similar...

The main +2007 manufacturing change was using some tabular grain instead some cubic, with less silver they obtain the similar density for the same exposure.

A main difference is that the +2007 version shows less grain, but this is mostly seen with rolls and not with sheets.

Thin/Thick it's easy to check in the kodak datasheets that are very good, they plot the sensitometric curves with absolute Lux·Seconds for the H, so there is no doubt about that, just read the datasheets and you'll get well informed.

Regards

[John Olsen]

Any chance you're seeing more background fog on the older sheets, making the image density appear thicker?

[Mark Sampson]

Long experience testing films (much of it within EK itself) tells me this; anomalous results happen. And they mean one thing; run the tests again.
Perhaps cut the sheets down to 4x5 to save money... but run the tests again, and keep careful notes.
And per Mr. Olsen, I would expect to see more base fog on film eleven years past date, kept frozen or not.