How's Tri-X?

newsgrunt said:
Tom,

btw Tom, I know it's a rather long shot, but did you ever in your career meet an Erik Christensen ? He was a photographer at the Globe and an early adopter of Leicas in Canada. Previously worked in Denmark. An amazing photographer who I believe was ahead of his time what with the Danes arguably at the vanguard of photojournalism.

Hope the two of you enjoy your trip east.


Fred
Click to expand...

I dont think i know Eric Christensen, but the name rings a bell. Denmark, and in particular "Berlingske" - the big daily in Copenhagen always had some really good shooters on staff such as Claus Bjorn Larsen (won World Press several times) and others. They still do good essay style work and allow the shooters time off for pursuing the stories.
 
I've been using Tri-X for over 35 years, and I really don't see the change over time that a few others have pointed out. I still develop it in the same D76, same time as always. It's got the same great tones, speed and very good grain for any 400 film.

colincooperphoto said:
Woops I spoke too soon -- Its already Chi-X

http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/history/00-06-13/b01-koda.html

And all this time I've been thinking that they made it here... Nothings sacred in the name of profits I guess....Lol.
Click to expand...

So, where in that page does it say anything about Tri-X being made in China? Did I miss it?
 
My understanding is Tri-X still coated in Rochester, mainly because Kodak invested billions in new plant in the end of 1990s. Setting up another plant is expensive, no matter where. I doubt any other new high capacity film coating line will ever be opened now.
 
It was around before Methuselah. Easy to expose and develop. Very nice tonal range. I like the stuff, but Neopan 400 is always my first choice in the 400 speed range.
 
I'm with Tom A and others - Tri-X has been a staple for a long time but I've been doing more with the Fuji films lately. In fact I just ordered two bricks of Neopan 400 (and some 1600) for a project. The price is nearly 1/2 of Tri-X and I like it very much.

I've been playing around with Diafine lately too... Another nice thing about Neopan 400 (for me) is that it only pushes to 640 ASA with Diafine instead of the 1250 ASA of Tri-X. When I need speed Neopan 1600 pushes to 2400 with Diafine.

Neopan 400 looks great in Diafine too - I would say at least as good as my old-standby HC-110(H) - and maybe nicer scanning of highlights. YMMV...

Gregg
 
Last edited:
Well... I came into possession of four rolls of Tri-X (my favorite, as stated above, is Agfa, but the long development time of 10 minutes is leading me to look for something else). I exposed them last weekend and will report soon... because I'm planning on souping the two of them tonight. See you later! 🙂
 
Tom A said:
...
I used to get the British made triX from Unique Photo in N.Y. for $ 1,89 or 1,99/roll in batches of 1000 rolls.
....
Click to expand...

IIRC, the box top in my avatar is from around 1981. The price sticker is still on it. $1.60 for a 20 exposure roll. Remember 20 exposure rolls? 🙂


.
 
This thread is stale, but I just want to add a bit ... I have been using Tri-X since about 1973. I've souped it in D-76 (never got great results, but that's obviously my fault, plus I used D-76 when I was just starting), HC-110 (one of my favourites), FG-7, Rodinal, and some others I've forgotten.

I am currently using Rodinal exclusively. The other day I processed a roll but changed my agitation regimen as I wasn't quite happy with the results I was getting. FWIW, reducing agitation made a BIG and positive difference. I use Rodinal 1:100, 20 min @ 20C, agitate for 30 seconds to start, then 3 gentle inversions every 5 minutes.

1574197748_648c12e999.jpg

Olympus 35SP
 
I really like the results your getting there, I've been dilluting my rodinal 1:50 and never thought of going higher, I tried going down to 1:25 and wasn't pleased with results but 1:100 looks really nice.
I also decided to agitate less and like the results I'm getting that way.
 
Trius said:
This thread is stale, but I just want to add a bit ... I have been using Tri-X since about 1973. I've souped it in D-76 (never got great results, but that's obviously my fault, plus I used D-76 when I was just starting), HC-110 (one of my favourites), FG-7, Rodinal, and some others I've forgotten.

I am currently using Rodinal exclusively. The other day I processed a roll but changed my agitation regimen as I wasn't quite happy with the results I was getting. FWIW, reducing agitation made a BIG and positive difference. I use Rodinal 1:100, 20 min @ 20C, agitate for 30 seconds to start, then 3 gentle inversions every 5 minutes.

1574197748_648c12e999.jpg

Olympus 35SP
Click to expand...

That is gorgeous tonality. I haven't shot Tri-X in many years, but back in high school I developed it in rodinal and liked the tonality though it was a bit grainy. That pic you showed here is magnificent. Do you use the 1+100 with minimal agitation for all of your Tri-X work or just high contrast scenes like the one shown? What EI do you use? I always shot it at 400 in Rodinal 1+50. Does it lose speed in the diluted developer with less agitiation? Thanks
 
Thanks, everyone. I shoot Tri-X @ 250. I know Tom feels Kodak has invested million$ in testing so he just rates @ box speed (Hi Tom! 😀), but this is a habit left over from "old Tri-X", and I still prefer a bit more shadow detail, etc.

To answer your question, Chris, yes, I treat all my TX this way. As a result, I do get shots that are low contrast, so I have to boost them in post-processing/printing. That's the price I pay for using roll film. If I had a roll that was entirely or mostly shot under flat lighting, I would go to 1:50. I haven't worked out the time for that, though I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to estimate it and get pretty close.

This shot is in overcast lighting, with the same processing. I had to fiddle with levels etc., I'm not sure I did a great job. But it is pretty "accurate" with respect to the conditions.

1582295783_c53379cf26.jpg

(Note the man in the window ... if you can find him.)
 
Well, Tri-X in Rodinal *is* around 250-320. And it is around 500 in Microphen or DD-X. So nothing wrong with box speed of 400 🙂
 
Tom A said:
I am seriously looking at Fuji 400 and/or Fuji 400 Presto as replacement (after only 50 years) and the next time I go to Japan I will investigate a bulk-buy and freeze it.
Click to expand...

Tom, Fuji stopped producing bulk rolls as of March of this year. Dirk at Megaperls still has bulk rolls of Acros, Neopan SS, and Neopan Super Presto (same 1600 that we get) up on his website. No Neopan 400. Order now if you want any of the other 3. Maybe your voice of protest would have some influence on the Fuji decision makers, maybe not. It would no doubt mean quite a lot more than mine or that of lots of others. I've got 2 bulk rolls of Neopan 400 & 2 rolls of 1600 in my fridge & that will do me for a long time (years... plural, literally). Not a pro, not the slightest blip on Fuji's radar.
Love this thread & your input.
 
Gulp!!! Earl made BIG boo-boo!!!

Gulp!!! Earl made BIG boo-boo!!!

I am SO embarrassed. Those of you who know me know that I'm pretty laid back, those of you who know me better may know that I'm pretty precise, especially when it matters. With a degree in biology and network engineering on my résumé, and a job that needs precision, I'm usually pretty careful.

However ... maple tree shot is not Tri-X. I had processed a roll of Tri-X and a roll of APX100 together (times are same for me in Rodinal), and I did a whole bunch of scanning of both rolls. In my excitement at the results of changing my agitation regimen, I simply got mixed up as to which shots were which.

Here's a shot which IS Tri-x. Not the same light and contrast range, for sure. But I checked the film edge and it is Tri-X. :angel:

I doubt anyone was misled into purchasing massive amounts of Tri-X as a result of my mistake, but if you were ... have fun with it! Rodinal makes good negs of Tri-X too.

Oh, and I'm not leaving RFF and starting my own site as a result of my embarrassment.

1592745306_7f12642bcc_o.jpg
 
I just tried tri-x at iso2000 yesterday. I was very pleased with the results. It seems like it's a great film for pushing! I will try 3200 soon too.

both processed at iso2000, xtol
1749899578_1ef3f9bb14.jpg


1750649443_144aff4b2a.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom