Film Thoughts: TX v TMY2

[GarageBoy]

Hows the modern tri x and xtol 1:1 combo? Id like to use tmax as a main and occasionally use tx400, but would like to burn up some xtol and not have tp mix up a separate d76 batch just for trix

 

[Godfrey]

Hows the modern tri x and xtol 1:1 combo? Id like to use tmax as a main and occasionally use tx400, but would like to burn up some xtol and not have tp mix up a separate d76 batch just for trix

It's been a while since I used XTOL, but it seemed to work just fine with either once I learned the right temp-time-agitation methodology.

Nowadays I process so infrequently that I've taken to using HC-110 mixed fresh from concentrate each time. HC-110 negs seem very similar to D-76 negs with TX.

G

 

[pete hogan]

I always use Tri-X. Since I use commercial processing and scanning, I figure that if they can do anything well, it will likely be Tri-X.

 

[traveler_101]

Agreed. I recently took TMX and TMY2 to Cambodia and loved the look of TMX for photographing the ancient temples. It's not as bitingly sharp as Delta 100 or Acros but it has a certain something that's great for architecture/landscapes. I used TMY2 as my 'general purpose' film but will probably take TX in preference next time.

I think this is a smart comment. There is something light and uplifting about the film (when properly exposed and developed) and isn't that appropriate for temples, churches, monumental buildings and much landscape shooting?