Bill58
Native Texan
Strange as it may seem, I've never used Tri-X 400 before and my question is can you expose/ develop it at ASA 100 w/O any problems? My reason is to get a lower f-stop/ narrower DOF in bright sunlight.
40oz
...
I'd use it at 200 if it were me. I don't know why you'd choose Tri-X for shooting at 100, especially if you've never used it before.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Yes, you can and Kodak even supplies times for development, but this is what Plus-X is for and you will get MUCH better results using it at EI100 rather than Tri-X?
Marty
Marty
like2fiddle
Curious
I'm in general agreement with the others who have answered you. I like Tri-x and use it rated anywhere from 250 to 1600. I've never tried it at 100, usually use Acros. One nice thing about trix is it's versatility. You may not get the "best" results you could possibly get at each EI but you will get something usable over a very wide range.
Johann Espiritu
Lawyer / Ninja
I've used Tri-X from 200 to 1600 as well, but for 100ASA, I usually reach for T-Max 100.
Carlo
Member
From my experience, Tri-X at 100 ASA will show huge grain (which sometimes is exactly what you want), at least in D76 in the 1+1 dilution at 22 °C. The negs are then very dense, enlargment requires quite long exposure and neg-scan becomes a pain.
gns
Well-known
I have done this and know others who have as well. Combined with a short dev. time in D76 1:1 to control very contrasty situations. It will not show huge grain. I fact, my experience is, less time in developer = less (smaller) grain.
However, if you are shooting a normal to low contrast scene, you will have some very flat negs.
I can't remember the exact dev. time but probably around 6-7 minutes at 68F?
Why not do as others have suggested, just get a slower film?
Good luck,
Gary
However, if you are shooting a normal to low contrast scene, you will have some very flat negs.
I can't remember the exact dev. time but probably around 6-7 minutes at 68F?
Why not do as others have suggested, just get a slower film?
Good luck,
Gary
R
ruben
Guest
For years I have used Trix-X at Iso 100, processing it at 73% of the time I use for ISO 400. The result is nothing else but a further improvement in every direction, including lower grain.
I have pushed Tri-X to 1600 too, with the film showing much more grain but still maintaining detail.
All these is the greatness of Tri-X
The reason why ISO 200 is the most common ISO being used for Tri-X has nothing to do with technical issues, but a human compromise between the best possible look and our need for a fast film too.
ISO 200 is the most common ISO used for color films.
Cheers,
Ruben
I have pushed Tri-X to 1600 too, with the film showing much more grain but still maintaining detail.
All these is the greatness of Tri-X
The reason why ISO 200 is the most common ISO being used for Tri-X has nothing to do with technical issues, but a human compromise between the best possible look and our need for a fast film too.
ISO 200 is the most common ISO used for color films.
Cheers,
Ruben
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
tri-x can go to 3200 if needed. (however, I prefer the look of Hp-5.) i ususally take a roll along in case I ever need some serious night vision.
wintoid
Back to film
Get some ND filters.
Turtle
Veteran
I would not shoot it at 100. No less than 200 if it were me as pulled development results in reduced contrast.
I rate it at 250 in bright sun if using D76. You could shoot it at 200 in perceptol or microdol X but any lower is likely to result in overexposure, increasing grain etc.
I would carry a good 100 and 400 speed film about instead. There will be some compromise of course, but thats film for you! ND filters are a good suggestion, but the use of a yellow will still knock off a stop.
I rate it at 250 in bright sun if using D76. You could shoot it at 200 in perceptol or microdol X but any lower is likely to result in overexposure, increasing grain etc.
I would carry a good 100 and 400 speed film about instead. There will be some compromise of course, but thats film for you! ND filters are a good suggestion, but the use of a yellow will still knock off a stop.
bastian a.
Well-known
I use a ND8 filter with Tri-X sometimes. You get a 50 ASA film then with the characteristics you are used to with Tri-X. And you still have the possibility to shoot without filter in low light situations.
B.
B.
rogerchristian
Established
Assuming normal development, rating @ 200 will provide better shadow detail.
Rating higher than 400 will help the highlights at the expense of the shadows, since you are basically moving it up and down the exposure curve.
Of course with different developers, times and agitation, the density at various points may change, as will the contrast. Since you are just getting started, stick with 400 for a while, then figure out how to change parameters to suit your needs as you become more proficient.
Being dull and boring, personally I pretty much stick with the printed numbers and development info.
BTW, 2 major events took place in the photographic world in the 1953-54 time period: Leica brought out the M3 and Kodak brought out the first Tri-X, which was coincidentally rated @ 200. The speed for Tri-X and Plus-X were later doubled when the 'safety factor' of 1 stop was removed, changing their ratings by about 1 stop or so, so that is why Tri-X is now 'officially' rated @ 400.
It is likely that without Tri-X, many of the iconic 60's and 70's photographs may not have been possible or as easy to get. 55 years old and going strong!
Rating higher than 400 will help the highlights at the expense of the shadows, since you are basically moving it up and down the exposure curve.
Of course with different developers, times and agitation, the density at various points may change, as will the contrast. Since you are just getting started, stick with 400 for a while, then figure out how to change parameters to suit your needs as you become more proficient.
Being dull and boring, personally I pretty much stick with the printed numbers and development info.
BTW, 2 major events took place in the photographic world in the 1953-54 time period: Leica brought out the M3 and Kodak brought out the first Tri-X, which was coincidentally rated @ 200. The speed for Tri-X and Plus-X were later doubled when the 'safety factor' of 1 stop was removed, changing their ratings by about 1 stop or so, so that is why Tri-X is now 'officially' rated @ 400.
It is likely that without Tri-X, many of the iconic 60's and 70's photographs may not have been possible or as easy to get. 55 years old and going strong!