rui
M2&IIIf user
I'd go for the Tri-X, but it's clearly a matter of personal taste. I love its grain and latitude. Usually, I develop it with Tmax developer (1+4) unless I want the extra grain Rodinal provides. 🙂
Please Help Tmax 400 or Tri-X?
- Thread starter anaanda
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 114
- Views 2K
kipkeston
Well-known
My favorite is Tri-X because it pushes to 2000 or 3200 really really well.
Leighgion
Bovine Overseer
I'm new to B&W with my first two rolls of Tri-X loaded in a two reel tank not yet developed, but as I'll offer an opinion anyway.
If you've got to think this hard about it, just take the Tri-X and be happy.
The way I see it, the strengths & weaknesses of different emulsions are really only worth considering if you have a clear idea of what you're facing/wanting. Without a clear idea, all the thinking and suggestions in the world isn't going to get you anywhere.
Tri-X has hung around since time began, so obviously it has a lot going for it.
If you don't end up liking the results you get and honestly think the difference is in the emulsion, well, live and learn, but I don't really see it's going to get figured out from thinking under these circumstances.
If you've got to think this hard about it, just take the Tri-X and be happy.
The way I see it, the strengths & weaknesses of different emulsions are really only worth considering if you have a clear idea of what you're facing/wanting. Without a clear idea, all the thinking and suggestions in the world isn't going to get you anywhere.
Tri-X has hung around since time began, so obviously it has a lot going for it.
If you don't end up liking the results you get and honestly think the difference is in the emulsion, well, live and learn, but I don't really see it's going to get figured out from thinking under these circumstances.
myoptic3
Well-known
I think you have been misinformed. There ARE no other B&W 400 speed films other than Tr-X and HP5 (well, none worth shooting anyway). See enclosed image. If it ain't got grain, it ain't B&W.
Last edited:
myoptic3
Well-known
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
Tri-X or HP5 is what I generally use in a 400 speed. I push it really good sometimes, too.
thomasw_
Well-known
trix @ 250 or 200 in rodinal 50+1 -- I find this look so full and rich; i love the dark shadows as they fade quickly to coal black. Creamy whites....fading to the shadows, again to coal black.
That said, some of the finest BW work that I follow on RFF or FLickr has been done by my friend, a RFF member named Telenous; and he uses HP5+ for virtually all of his low light shooting. Though, at bottom, I believe that what the photographer does with the subject/exposure/film/developer is only instrumental, for the sublimity of much Alkis' work transcends my attachment to a certain film or developer.
That said, some of the finest BW work that I follow on RFF or FLickr has been done by my friend, a RFF member named Telenous; and he uses HP5+ for virtually all of his low light shooting. Though, at bottom, I believe that what the photographer does with the subject/exposure/film/developer is only instrumental, for the sublimity of much Alkis' work transcends my attachment to a certain film or developer.
Chris101
summicronia
Trix is just about the best all around film, and it's slightly cheaper than the other choices. No matter what, you will be able to get an image from any exposure, although as has been stated, too far off, and it will get crazy grain.
Speaking of grain, the most beautiful grain, and thus images will come from Delta 400. I love this film, but it's half again as expensive as trix, and you will need to hit about that much closer to the perfect exposure. If you underexpose, it will block. Both films will print or scan very nicely if exposed within a stop. I like delta 3200 for ALL my night shooting. If it's bright, pull it back to 1600, and the grain will look just like trix, only it will be more uniform.
HP5 is ok, and I know nothing about tmax, as I never use it. I have seen some very nice work with both of those, but my films are efke 25 for slow stuff, delta 100 for controlled lighting, trix in the camera for 'walk around', delta 400 for projects, delta 3200 at night. I develop everything in hc110 dilution b or h, or D76 if somebody else mixes it, or coffee if I am in a mood.
Speaking of grain, the most beautiful grain, and thus images will come from Delta 400. I love this film, but it's half again as expensive as trix, and you will need to hit about that much closer to the perfect exposure. If you underexpose, it will block. Both films will print or scan very nicely if exposed within a stop. I like delta 3200 for ALL my night shooting. If it's bright, pull it back to 1600, and the grain will look just like trix, only it will be more uniform.
HP5 is ok, and I know nothing about tmax, as I never use it. I have seen some very nice work with both of those, but my films are efke 25 for slow stuff, delta 100 for controlled lighting, trix in the camera for 'walk around', delta 400 for projects, delta 3200 at night. I develop everything in hc110 dilution b or h, or D76 if somebody else mixes it, or coffee if I am in a mood.
ibcrewin
Ah looky looky
I think he ended up using tmax 400. I saw it on his flickr.
bwaysteve
Newbie
Trix
Trix
Go with Trix rated 200.Shot 60 rolls in Europe recently and has that 50's look.Nice tonality.If you think larger for your end result,Delta 100 @iso50 to make a 30x40.I normally shoot people and expose for Zone VI skin.I usually have the lab develop at 6min.
Check my website under gallery steverileypictures.com
Trix
Go with Trix rated 200.Shot 60 rolls in Europe recently and has that 50's look.Nice tonality.If you think larger for your end result,Delta 100 @iso50 to make a 30x40.I normally shoot people and expose for Zone VI skin.I usually have the lab develop at 6min.
Check my website under gallery steverileypictures.com
philipp.leser
Established
mh2000
Well-known
I am a long time lover of Tri-X, but TMY-II is simply spectacular. Yes, TX is nicer at 250 than at 400, but why are you choosing a 400 speed film to shoot at 250??? In a pinch, TMY can be exposed at 800 with no change to developting. TX has a great classic signature, but it isn't always the best choice for everything, TMY is very very smooth and has great rich tonality... simply one of the most beautiful emulsions I've used (and I've used all on your list).
That said, you can get great results with any of your choices... have fun!
That said, you can get great results with any of your choices... have fun!
mh2000
Well-known
PS Delta pushes really well in Xtol.
Merkin
For the Weekend
For the majority of my life, HP5 was pretty much all I shot, and I still love it as a go-to film for daytime shooting when I don't know what I will encounter.
For medium format work, I have never gotten better results than I have gotten with Ilford Delta 100, it is super meaty in its tonality and depth, and might as well be grainless. I have never used Delta 400 though.
I don't like Tmax, but this is basically just a personal choice. Any time I have found myself considering Tmax, I have found that HP5 is what I really want.
I love Tri-x for its versatility and vintage look. During the day, rate it at 400 and develop it in D76 or whatever standard developer you like. At night or in low light, rate the roll at 1250 or 1600 and develop it in Diafine.
With the C41 process bw400cn, rate the film at 200 iso instead of 400 iso, particularly if you are shooting 35mm and getting it processed at your local drugstore. You will get much better results.
For medium format work, I have never gotten better results than I have gotten with Ilford Delta 100, it is super meaty in its tonality and depth, and might as well be grainless. I have never used Delta 400 though.
I don't like Tmax, but this is basically just a personal choice. Any time I have found myself considering Tmax, I have found that HP5 is what I really want.
I love Tri-x for its versatility and vintage look. During the day, rate it at 400 and develop it in D76 or whatever standard developer you like. At night or in low light, rate the roll at 1250 or 1600 and develop it in Diafine.
With the C41 process bw400cn, rate the film at 200 iso instead of 400 iso, particularly if you are shooting 35mm and getting it processed at your local drugstore. You will get much better results.
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
I think that it would really help Thee World, if you go with the Ilford stuff.
I originally started to use HP5+ because it's available, but I've grown to know and respect it.
I know nothing of Tri-X, other than the fact that Kodak don't have to care like Ilford do. They can't do anything else. And I believe that they will still make decent black and white negative film when Kodak throws it's other leg onto the bandwagon.
I don't mind if people even shoot it, just buy it. Ilford Photo are good dudes.
I originally started to use HP5+ because it's available, but I've grown to know and respect it.
I know nothing of Tri-X, other than the fact that Kodak don't have to care like Ilford do. They can't do anything else. And I believe that they will still make decent black and white negative film when Kodak throws it's other leg onto the bandwagon.
I don't mind if people even shoot it, just buy it. Ilford Photo are good dudes.
Last edited:
mh2000
Well-known
Kodak is in a world of hurt and they still recently released an updated TMY, that says something... and really, I do think it is the best ISO 400 speed film ever made, probably that ever will be made. Sure, I like the vintage look of other older films... and use them when I specifically want a vintage look, but I don't think anyone should slam Kodak when they are still improving their b&w products in the current environment...
I think for the most part, everyone that slams Tmax films didn't read the instructions on how to develop it... thinking that it should be treated exactly like some other old film they've used for years. Tmax films need lots of aggitation and need to rinse for a while before the purple goes away, other than that they have the most latitude of any b&w film IMO and the best tonality and finest grain for speed, this has been reported in most independant film tests as well... and they work superbly with stand developing as well.
I think for the most part, everyone that slams Tmax films didn't read the instructions on how to develop it... thinking that it should be treated exactly like some other old film they've used for years. Tmax films need lots of aggitation and need to rinse for a while before the purple goes away, other than that they have the most latitude of any b&w film IMO and the best tonality and finest grain for speed, this has been reported in most independant film tests as well... and they work superbly with stand developing as well.
Melvin
Flim Forever!
I was in Europe recently and could only find HP5 where I was(not xxx). It turned out great. However it seems more delicate than xxx. I managed to damage the emulsion on a couple frames getting them on the reel.
sanmich
Veteran
In that case I'd take Tri-X for sure, it really shines in 120 where grain is not as much an issue.
Tri-X at 200
and at 400
both with taken a rolleiflex on Tri-X.
Todd
second that
the difference in grain size is so unimportant in 120 that it's a no brainer for me. Take the easiest film, the most forgiving one..
35photo
Well-known
My vote would be a film that's not on the list. Fuji Neopan 400, great tones, and pretty cheap can't get any better than that!
Marko
Marko
Vics
Veteran
I voted for Tri-X because after a lot of experimenting, I like it best, but I wouldn't CONSIDER taking anything on a long trip that I'm not already used to. Take the film and cameras with you that you've been shooting with. I'd think that old maxim still holds up pretty well.
Vic
Vic
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
