How's Tri-X?

[SolaresLarrave]

Sorry about the bad pun... couldn't help it when I was writing the title of this thread.

In any case, I do want to know why is Tri-X so venerated. I am here, sitting at the computer, and next to it are four boxes with one roll of 24 exposures of Kodak Tri-X each. I purchased them because I want to expose it and find out what's the hoopla about this film.

In the past I have used Ilford FP4, Kodak T-Max ISO 400, Agfa APX ISO 400, Fuji Neopan ISO 400, and Gekko ISO 400. I think I developed once a roll of HP5 (is that Ilford ISO 400), and one of T-Max 3200 (which I didn't like one bit). Of all those films, the one I like the best... at least it never has given me trouble and I look how the negatives look, is the Agfa. Nicely sharp, contrasty and with an agreeable range.

Kodak has been something like my bête noire... No matter what, I always have some kind of problem developing their stuff. It takes my fixer longer, the film doesn't slip itself easily into the spool and the last time I developed one (a T-Max ISO 400), somehow I managed to get the last three frames stuck together inside the tank. How did that happen?

Sorry about the long post... but I still wanna know what's the deal with Tri-X... and I'm willing to give the big Yellow Dad another chance.

Thanks in advance!

 

[eli griggs]

I think you'll get a lot of different replies to your question, but IMO you should be thinking about exploring the 'possibilities' of Tri-X and various developers by searching out examples in the galleries here and elsewhere like on Flicker.

Personally, I'd start by using the key words Tri-X, HC-110, dilution H or D-76 and just look at what others are doing with this film that appeals to you.

If your lucky, pics you like will give some details as to film speed rating, filters, development, etc. If you see something you like, try similar out yourself and fine tune the process till you take a decision on whither or no you think it is something you want to use or can live without.

Eli

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Thanks, Eli... you're right, Tri-X must have its fans and detractors alike. I just want to find out. Hopefully, I'll be able to shoot a roll of decent subjects this coming weekend. However, let's see what to expect...

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Here is one I got in TMY (M6TTL, Elmarit 28, D76 development). I'm not saying it's bad... it's simply difficult to handle for me, but the results are very pleasant.

 

[drewbarb]

The thing about this is that all films will look and behave differently depending upon a range of factors, from E.I. to developer used to the whole processing regimen applied. Even that T-Max 3200 you don't like will look better when the soup, time, and temp are all matched to the speed used. (That said, I don't much care for it either; when I want to shoot in low light, I'll push Tri-X or HP5. Tmax 3200's real normal speed is only around 1000, but I've found that Tri-X pushes easily to 1600, and can go beyond that.)

Part of the allure of Tri-X used to be that unlike many of the other films available years ago, it was tough NOT to get a printable neg out of it. It's a very forgiving film, and it does look good in plenty of soups across a wide range of speeds. I have times and temps recorded for Tri-X at almost every speed from E.I. 200 to E.I. 12,800, in a range of about 15 different developers. Another part of the Tri-X mystique is it's longevity. It's been around for 50 plus years, and although it has gone through a number of changes in emulsion formula and base, it's still roughly the same film. That's a lot of time to develop a reputation (if you'll pardon the pun...). These days there are lots of films out there that do as nice a job or better, but Tri-X is still around and still chugging along, in part because it's a good film, and in part because so many people know it. Even though I personally shoot much more Fuji and Ilford film these days, I still process a ton of Tri-X for my clients, and I still keep some around for my own shooting. It's worth a try.

 

[RayPA]

Venerated? No, just very familiar. It was the first film I ever shot with, processed, and enlarged almost 30 years ago. I know it's supposed to be different from what it once was, but I still see the same old TriX. It's probably the most flexible and forgiving film. It pushes well, prints well, scans well, photoshops well. Great contrast. Grain when you want it. Just a great all around film. OK so I 'venerate' the stuff!

.

edit: oh, I just finished processing four rolls.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Thanks a lot, Drew & Ray! Now I understand the admiration for Tri-X a little better. I simply thought it was based on its being one of the first fast films in the market.

 

[colincooperphoto]

Solares, having been on the market so long is a big part of what makes it so good. I think any film emulsion apart from the ones you already know take time to get used to (I know, master of the obvious...) but in the case of Tri-X so many people have gotten used to it over so many years, it has become a very well known quantity.

Its like a well worn pair of levis to me, and as it was with Ray, the first roll of fillm that I shot, developed, and printed myself was Tri-X. Only with me it was about 20 years ago (Ray Are you in your mid to late 40's ?)

I just wish I could get it for the same price as arista, but then poor kodak wouldnt make any money due to expensive american labor etc, and then some genius at the big K would say, "what the hell lets make it overseas" and then It would be Chi-X now wouldnt it.

I suggest stocking up on it now, by 2010 they might not be making it anymore if the story in the link below is an accurate prediction of whats to become of EK and film in general, if not america as a whole.

http://www.manufacturing.net/Kodak-Manufacturing-Shrinking.aspx

-C

 

[colincooperphoto]

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.

 

[charjohncarter]

Go on 'Flickr' and scroll down to 'popular tags' type TriX, and you will have plenty of examples. I just checked; 31,000.

 

[sleepyhead]

TRi-X literally "ain't what it used to be" - there's a difference between today's film and that of about 10 years ago (and earlier) - for example they push differently. Some people regard the old version as better. I don't have energy now to go into the details.

 

[Finder]

Of all the 400-speed films, I like Tri-X the least. It has not gotten better than the competition over the years.

 

[feenej]

Tri-X: grainy, good looking, contrasty, "newspaper look". (just my take on it based on the results I get). My second favorite film after Neopan.

 

[40oz]

Tri-X has a very fine grain for the speed, is very forgiving of exposure, is a well-known quantity, pushes and pulls easily, is easy to work with as a piece of negative, all around a very nice film.

In a market full of good films, "best" doesn't mean much, but it's my favorite. I like other films too, but something about Tri-X just trumps all others.

Tri-X in D-76 is my gold standard. Tha's not to say no other film has nice grain, good tones, and a good negative base, just that Tri-X does, and it's other virtues are nice as well.

I really have to say Tri-X isn't grainy except compared to 100 speed films at high enlargements or with your nose in the print. The grain is quite fine at 400. It CAN be grainy if that's what you like, as well as contrasty and "newspaper"-y, but it can also be fine-grained, smooth, subtle, perfect. It's all in how you like it. The idea that Tri-X is one single thing is either ignorance or self-deception. With all due respect. 🙂

 

[ruben]

The answer is very simple. Tri-X (and perhaps Ilford HP5 too) is the most versatile film of all.
In every single aspect of film, there is a film or more better than Tri-X. But there is no other one having it all.
Not to speak about the wider range of f/stops, far greater than those found at printing paper.
Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Tom A]

I shot my first Tri X in 1957. I was given a paper bag filled with Tri X and the admonition' This is some kind of new film from Kodak, they say that you can shoot it at Din 27 (ASA 400). Must be grainier than hell".
Well that bag started a love affair with black/white and photography that still persists. I have shot 10's of 1000's of rolls of TriX and souped in a variety of developers. In the end, shoot it at 400 asa, develop it in D76 1:1 for 10-11 minutes and you will see why 1000's of press photographers and photo journalists still carry back up Leica M's and TriX in their bags! Digital or not - there is something special about a 16x20 on fibre based paper from TriX. It is not the finest grain, nor does it have the smoothest tones, but it works just about everywhere and everytime.
Pick up some 100ft cans of it, load your own and shoot away - after a while you will find what works for you and then stick to that combination. Oh, yes - stock up on TriX too - one of these days some corporate accountant at kodak will declare "We will stoip making film". I get nervous if my stock is below 1000 rolls of Tri X in the freezer (about 18-20 month supply).
All you REALLY ever need is a couple of Leica M2's, a 35f2 and a 50f2, pockets filled with TriX and lots of time to wander about the world!
Piece of trivia: according to an inside source at Kodak/USA - close to 60% of ALL black and white film that Kodak makes is TriX in 35mm size! Another piece of trivia: The most expensive part of a roll of TriX for Kodak is the felt-trap and glue to hold it in place!

 

[Pablito]

Tom, I have seen a dramatic change in Tri-X in the last 5 years or so, since Kodak moved production to a different plant and changed the formula. I used to love the rich negs I could get by exposing for the shadows but with today's product the negs seem thin and flat by comparison. I have thus switched to HP5+ which I actually find is closer to the older
Tri-X than today's Tri-X. I wonder if you have found a similar change in the film.

 

[newsgrunt]

Tom,

That's great trivia about TriX . A thousand rolls ? That's a lot of rolling if you bulk your own 😉 I have maybe 10 100' rolls of TriX, APX 100 and 400 and about 50 rolls of TriX 120 in my freezer.Looked nice in FG7 w/sulfite and also in Rodinal when I don't care about grain. Acufine and TriX were made for each other imo.

Although TriX is my 'go to' film, my first rolls were on Panatomic X. Damn that was a nice film and I wish they'd bring that back.

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

 

[NickTrop]

Reasons to like Tri-X

1. Versatile works well in everything I would say "except perhaps Rodinal" but Ralph Gibson would disagree
2. Tri-X - my favorite high-speed film when developed in Diafine. Lynx 14 (f1.4 fixed lens RF) is practically devoted to Tri-X to be souped in Diafine
3. "Classic" black and white look
4. Readily available
5. Great latitude
6. Great tonality
7. Good "people shot" film, skin tones.
8. Inexpensive when purchased in bulk.
9. Has a unique signature - you can usually pick out a Tri-X print
10. A well-balanced film

 

[Tom A]

Nick, your points #4 and #8 are not valid anymore! Here in Vancouver you have to scour the stores for Tri X, even the "big" ones. As for price - it has doubled in the last 3-4 years (now close to $5/roll! - not a big deal if you only shoot 50-100 rolls a year - but when you start shooting 6-800 a year it adds up!). 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.
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.
Kodak did change it 5-6 years ago, mainly the base to make it more scratch proof and I think they "thinned" the emulsion slightly. It needs more time in the B bath of Divided D76, which i find is typical of todays thinner emulsions. Otherwise I haven't really noticed a huge change, but then it is probably one of these cases where you "adjust" to it subconciously. It still works with pretty much anything you dunk it in - negatives might not look pretty, but you can always get a print out of it.