TRI-X 320 film

[Rick Tardiff]

I have been using Tmax 100 for about a year and like it well enough. With the dark days of winter approaching I got a box of tri-x 320. I have done a couple of searches today and don't seem to be able to find out any info from LF users.
I was wondering if I should rate it at ISO320. I use Ilfosol 3 for processing and hope that I won't have many problems with that.
I have been on this forum for a year now but am still very much a newbie when it comes to the real nuts and bolts of this craft. Thanks in advance for any advice/help or direction you can pass on. Rick

[Kevin Crisp]

You could start here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ighlight=Tri-x

I rate it based on my testing at 320, but since my meter and yours will probably not agree, that doesn't help you. I am not familiar with your developer; I use HC110 and Xtol 1:3. A lot of people rate it at 200 or 250, whether that is from testing or preference I don't know.

It's a great film and has been around for at least 5 decades.

It is very forgiving, if you can handle exposing and processing TMAX 100 you won't have any trouble with it.

[asph]

i've been through a 50 sheet box of tri-x 320 and it's a really nice film. i rate it at 200 and developed in rodinal 1:50, a great combination. I prefer it over xtol 1:1 for this film. no experience with ilfosol though.

[Rick Tardiff]

Thanks for the help that's what I needed. I will try other films too, just happened to start with this one.

[Jay DeFehr]

Rick,

Standard LF practice is to err on the side of overexposure, and if EI 200 amounts to overexposure for your film/developer combination, it will likely be a small error and unlikely to degrade your image quality. If you find your negatives are too dense at EI 200, adjust your EI back to box speed. One of the great things about LF photography, is that it is very forgiving of these kinds of errors. At the risk of being ostracized, I'll admit I rarely use a light meter for LF, unless I'm testing. Most of the details we obsess about (film, developer, lens) have far less influence on the quality of the images we produce than many are willing to admit. Lighting, composition, point of view (as in: having something to say, as opposed to camera placement, though camera placement is also among the very top tier influences) are all infinitely more important than these technical considerations that dominate discussion. My point is that your inexperience is less of a barrier to making satisfying images than you might suspect.

[jan labij]

amen--to all of what he says.

[jan labij]

And I thought I was the only one who does'nt meter every shot. I use a weston master and usually just meter once, to get a feel for the intensity of the light on that day. W-e-e-e-l, I do sometimes meter the shadows, and count down stops to put the shadows at zone 2, or 3.