Is TRI-X the same beast as before?

[Jaans]

I have been using TRI-X since 1995, about the same time I started photography. I started of using the classic combination of D76 1:1 for about 10 mins. I also used HC-110 Dilution-H for around 11 mins (depending on lighting conditions). However, for the last 10 years, I could never replicate the grain I got with the film that was developed earlier on in my journey, so I consequently started experimenting with Rodinal 1:25 or 1:50.

I started using Rodinal because I came to the conclusion that perhaps Kodak had changed the emulsion and to get decent grain with the newer emulsion, then it may be best to use Rodinal. Of course you can increase the temperature or develop for longer with D76, but then you run the risk of losing your highlights.

So, has any other members had similar experiences? What about people who were using TRI-X in the 60's, 70's or 80's - how was your experience with this film at that time?

So in short, is TRI-X the same beast as earlier times??

 

[Ljós]

Oh, it definitely changed. And within the most generally accepted parameters of "image quality", it improved. Modern Tri-x is less grainy than 5063 TX.
Ilford Hp5plus is closer to "the old" Tri-x, since Ilford has not rebooted the formula for quite some time now. For my taste, modern Tri-x feels lukewarm. I use either Hp5plus or the Tmax 400 (excellent film!).

Greetings, Ljós

 

[Rayt]

After I am finished with my Trix stash I will switch to HP5+ mainly because it is a true iso400 film unlike modern Tri-X. I read on Roger Hick's website that HP5+ is iso640 in DDX 1:4 (please correct me if my memory is faulty). If that is true then the speed advantage is relevant to me. I find the HP5+ edgier while Tri-X smoother. If I want smooth I would shoot TMY and I get fine grain too. So I agree with the above poster that it is "lukewarm" in this respect.

 

[pete hogan]

I wish some of the Tri-X that I shot in the '50s had survived so I might compare with today's film, but only a few Kodachromes made it this far.

 

[GarageBoy]

Why is modern Tri X not considered a true ISO400 film?

DDX is speed increasing

 

[telenous]

A couple of years ago I bought out of curiosity a roll of TriX dating back to 1976. I shot it at around EI200 and developed in D76 1+1. The film was peppered with black spots, other than that it looked OK. To my eye the contrast seemed TriXish rather than HP5ish (not to be contrarian to what everyone says, it just seemed that way to me) and the grain looked perhaps a tiny bit coarser. Overall, it didn't seem to be a drastic departure from the current iteration of TriX that I am used to, and all that with a roll of film that was far from ideal for a test like this. Here's one pic i saved for my reference from that roll btw, I don't know how much you can tell from it, probably not much, but here goes anyway:



.

 

[varjag]

Tri-X would give you fair 640 ISO in Microphen or DDX as well.

I mostly used the "modern" formulation, it's a very versatile film. And yes Rodinal still brings out a degree of grain, but rated at EI250-320 it's very moderate.


6th ave by varjagg, on Flickr

 

[znapper]

It's still sh*t


🙂

Kidding, I think it's a nice film, too bad there are a few too-hardcore fanboys around, because it's not the "best" of the 400 ISO's from a technical standpoint. I use it because it has nice bite, character and is readily available and affordable.

Here's a scaerdy-kitten from a shoe-shop in Turkey, Tri-X in HC-110B with my Hasselblad 503CW. ^^

Paranoid kitten =) by znapper74, on Flickr

 

[sevo]

I perceived the first major change during my photographic life (somewhere in the nineties) as a mild set-back - it became less grainy, but also slower and less forgiving in exposure and development. The second major change (around eight years ago) was a dramatic improvement - it is back to the original qualities, while the grain is almost down to my old Plus-X negatives. But YMMV depending on the processing - people using other developers or rating for other speeds may have had other results...

 

[johannielscom]

Tri-X would give you fair 640 ISO in Microphen or DDX as well.

I mostly used the "modern" formulation, it's a very versatile film. And yes Rodinal still brings out a degree of grain, but rated at EI250-320 it's very moderate.


6th ave by varjagg, on Flickr

Recently I've taken up Rodinal 1:100 stand development in the fridge and I get very smooth and perfectly scannable negatives from TriX now, almost non-existent grain.

Although it's not the OP's preference (from his original post I read he liked grain since his early TriX days) but still I thought I'd point this out, that TriX, Rodinal and minimal grain can be done.

 

[Jaans]

Recently I've taken up Rodinal 1:100 stand development in the fridge and I get very smooth and perfectly scannable negatives from TriX now, almost non-existent grain.

Although it's not the OP's preference (from his original post I read he liked grain since his early TriX days) but still I thought I'd point this out, that TriX, Rodinal and minimal grain can be done.

Thanks everyone for your input.

In my case, the subject will determine how much grain I want. If I'm shooting street (which is 90% of the time) then I want grain. But if I am doing some portraiture or capturing social events where I want smooth skin tones, then I want less grain.

I have also found that Rodinal can give minimal grain with TRI-X, depending on temperature, agitation and time. I usually develop at around 18C or 19C with Rodinal and agitate first 30 seconds then about once a minute.

I have read some conjecture on the internet about 1:50 vs 1:25. I have found that 1:25 actually gives smoother grain but more contrast. This is not scientific of course, just what I have noticed.

I love shooting cloudy overcast days with 1:25 for around 7 minutes-8 minutes (EI:400). However, if there are moderate highlights then I go for 1:50 for around 11:30 minutes (EI:400). If there are strong highlights then I rate at EI:200 and develop for around 10 minutes.

My time of 7-8 minutes is standard, and somewhat short compared to Ralph Gibson who goes for around 11 minutes at EI:200! If you go to his website you will see that there are blown highlights and zip all shadow detail - however, I love this effect and it enhances his work of which I am a big fan.

I am also a big fan of Michael Ackerman and Anders Petersen and would be interested to know there processing details??

 

[Harryo1962]

I think that 'lukewarm' is a great way to describe Tri-X now. And I have used plenty of it dating back to the 70's. HP5 has taken its place in my freezer.

 

[joeswe]

I have been using TRI-X since 1995, about the same time I started photography. I started of using the classic combination of D76 1:1 for about 10 mins. I also used HC-110 Dilution-H for around 11 mins (depending on lighting conditions). However, for the last 10 years, I could never replicate the grain I got with the film that was developed earlier on in my journey, so I consequently started experimenting with Rodinal 1:25 or 1:50.

I started using Rodinal because I came to the conclusion that perhaps Kodak had changed the emulsion and to get decent grain with the newer emulsion, then it may be best to use Rodinal. Of course you can increase the temperature or develop for longer with D76, but then you run the risk of losing your highlights.

So, has any other members had similar experiences? What about people who were using TRI-X in the 60's, 70's or 80's - how was your experience with this film at that time?

So in short, is TRI-X the same beast as earlier times??

IIRC the story goes that Kodak made some changes to Tri-X (either voluntarily or because they were forced to do so) when they were consolidating their various remaining coating lines to the last remaining coating facility in Rochester a couple of years ago. Now, I have never been a great Tri-X shooter but, when I compare shots from recent Tri-X with those from the late 1980s, I definitely see more grain in the older ones. Of course developer, exposure, agitation etc. all play a role. Now, if you prefer a more edgy grain, you might try HP5+ or (more grain) Fomapan 400 (but this is more like a ISO200 film)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Was TriX as arhchy and purple as new one? With extra time for fixing it? And terribly overpriced? Nothing but disadvantages to me.

I tried it, at wopping $10 per roll price, just to check if it is worth of raving about it on the Net. Nice grain at @400 and that's it.


BBoy. by Ko.Fe., on Flickr

In couple of past years I worked through bulks of Foma 400, HP5+ and Kentmere 400. They are all good, but @200 for me, where HP5+ gives most pleasing results.

True ISO 400 is TMAX-400 for me. My next 400 film to try is Delta 400.
But I think I would stick to HP5+ and Kentmere 400 and learn how to get it right @400.

If cheap Polypan F works @400, why HP5+ wouldn't 🙂

Polypan F @400.

 

[lawrence]

Tri-X in Rodinal back in the early 1970s. This would have been the UK manufactured Tri-X that did not have any numbers on the film rebate.

 

[sevo]

Was TriX as arhchy and purple as new one?

The purple is the new colour sensitizer, which presumably could have been combined with the past technology as well - so that is a separate issue. I suspect that other makers will have to follow that route as well, whenever they do major changes to their production plant that require a renewal of environmental pollution permissions. Some of the old sensitizers are banned by current regulations and may only be used as long as you can plead for a legacy exemption...