dust, hairs etc. Trix vs Tmax

[J. Borger]

I shoot Medium Format mostly and have been using Hp5 and Tmax 400 for years without significant issues with dirt, dust, hairs etc...
I recently bought a lot of Trix and since i started using it i have far more issues keeping my negatives clean ..
All other parameters are exactly the same!!
Is there any logic the filmemulsion is of any influence here??

Thanks in advance!

 

[Mablo]

Can't say what might be behind it but, yes, Tri-X is a dust hoover compared to some other b&w emulsions. For example Ilford HP5+ usually contains just a few dust spots here and there.

 

[sevo]

That only got bad with "new" Tri-X a few years ago. They certainly did not entirely do away with anti-static treatment, or we'd have static issues (arcing trees) on the unprocessed film as well. I suspect that the new, environment friendly formulation replaced the anti-static agent used in older Kodak film with something that does not survive processing.

 

[John Bragg]

I am very fond of Tri-X, but have recently moved to HP5+ also, and there is far less tendency to attract dust as you say. Also HP5+ dries flatter.

 

[J. Borger]

Thanks guys!
It drives me crazey and i thougt it was somewhere in my workflow.
For scanning i can somehow live with it but wetprinting is a pita.
Just another 100 rolls of TRIX to go (!) and then its back to tmax 400 or HP5.