Please Help Tmax 400 or Tri-X?

Please Help Tmax 400 or Tri-X?

  • T max 400

    Votes: 54 12.9%

  • Tri -X

    Votes: 267 63.7%

  • HP5

    Votes: 79 18.9%

  • Delta 400

    Votes: 19 4.5%
  • Total voters
    419
lawrence said:
Here are examples of all three films, followed by my own opinion of them
Click to expand...

I agree with your findings.

Delta3200 is the fastest of the bunch. It is a low contrast film, which really works to your advantage when shooting in the dark. Grain is pretty good and not unattractive. Ilford claims it's true speed is 1000asa. Ilford DD-X is supposed to be the perfect developer for this film and that is what I used in the past, but I have been getting really good results with it at 1600 in Diafine. Don't freak out when you see your first negs. D3200 negs tend to look thin, as if you had made a mistake processing. But once you put them in the enlarger or scanner, all will be well...

P3200 is the second fastest, clocking in around 800asa. It doesn't have as much range as Delta3200. The whites clip and darks crush a lot faster. Also that grain.... it's beautiful, but huge. Use the Tmax developer. It gives a noticeable push to the shadows.

Neopan1600 is the slowest and clocks in at about 640asa. In my experience the shadows block up very quickly even at 1250 or 1600. But the grain is very fine. In the past I've shot it at 800 on flat overcast days. That works well and then it's a nice film.

Tri-X in Diafine at 1250 is really beautiful. Smooth, with nice highlights. The shadows aren't as good as Delta3200, but then again Tri-X is only 400 asa. But regardless, this is a real winning combination.
 
I don´t like tmax at all, I think (not only me) that was a strategic kodak product to replace the films before it.
Use triX, no better and nicer film than it, t-grain is so horrible, trix is far better.
If you will use tmax anyway, please use it at iso 250, the results will be far better than rated at 400 iso.
The only paper that can manage tmax range is a plastic one, ilford multigrade iv rc, trix is easy to print with several papers.

IMHO get far away from diafine.
 
Tmy Tmy Tmy Tmy

Tmy Tmy Tmy Tmy

You can use TMax 400 rated 200 for simplicity and somptuous result. And indexing 800 when the situation is getting difficult, the film stay fine. Adapt developping ; you can find advice on the web but do not forget Kodak documentation.
 
sergiojaenlara said:
I don´t like tmax at all, I think (not only me) that was a strategic kodak product to replace the films before it.
Use triX, no better and nicer film than it, t-grain is so horrible, trix is far better.
If you will use tmax anyway, please use it at iso 250, the results will be far better than rated at 400 iso.
The only paper that can manage tmax range is a plastic one, ilford multigrade iv rc, trix is easy to print with several papers.

IMHO get far away from diafine.
Click to expand...

I used to print Tmax 100 and Tmax 400 all the time on Ilford Multigrade IV Fiber paper with gorgeous results. These films are brilliant in the hands of a careful worker. If your developing technique is sloppy you'll get bad results with Tmax. It requires precise temperatures, agitation and times.
 
I voted for HP5: I mean, its kind of a toss-up b/w HP5 and Tri-X. I was raised on HP5 in fotog school b/c it was available and cheap. Ive tried Tri-X 400, and it is great as well, but perhaps a little overrated IMO in the film community. HP5 and Tri-X 400 are more forgiving, as has been mentioned, and you can shoot at lower or higher ISO for versatility!
However, you dont have to travel with just one type of film! When I travel and shoot B&W, I take more rolls of the film that is the most versatile (HP5 400 or Tri-X 400) and also a variety of B&W films:
1. one roll of Pan F50 for very sunny days (incredibly tight grain-->approaches medium format good);
2. some Tmax 400 and/or Delta 400: these are higher contrast films that are better for grey days with low contrast scenes, the high contrast films will allow better tonal range and structure without degrading the picture quality after pushing and pulling during processing
3. one Fuji 1600 roll: higher speed for low light without flash: also a versatile film with very good contrast (my current all-around favorite) that can be brought down to 400 ISO or pushed to 3200.
4. one roll of 3200: Kodak or ilford: can be shot with good effects from 800-6400 iso for versatility; think night shots with fast lens and no flash!
5. a couple rolls of 100 ISO: Tmax, or Delta for sunny days

Versatility is the key here!!! When you diversify flim, you can shoot anything in any condition with good effects, as long as you undersand the film!
Good luck!
 
sergiojaenlara said:
I don´t like tmax at all, I think (not only me) that was a strategic kodak product to replace the films before it.
Use triX, no better and nicer film than it, t-grain is so horrible, trix is far better.
If you will use tmax anyway, please use it at iso 250, the results will be far better than rated at 400 iso.
The only paper that can manage tmax range is a plastic one, ilford multigrade iv rc, trix is easy to print with several papers.

IMHO get far away from diafine.
Click to expand...

Two decades ago, that might have been a reasonable suspicion. It might even have been true.

But both films have endured.

Tri-X is still on the market, and TMY has been continuously improved, with the latest generation (2TMY, introduced 2008) being an unequivocally superb emulsion.

With my metering habits, it's a true ISO 400 film. Most others who have used 2TMY with D76, XTOL, or TMAX developer have said the same. YMMV, of course.

Have you actually used 2TMY?
 
sergiojaenlara said:
I don´t like tmax at all, I think (not only me) that was a strategic kodak product to replace the films before it.
Use triX, no better and nicer film than it, t-grain is so horrible, trix is far better.
If you will use tmax anyway, please use it at iso 250, the results will be far better than rated at 400 iso.
The only paper that can manage tmax range is a plastic one, ilford multigrade iv rc, trix is easy to print with several papers.

IMHO get far away from diafine.
Click to expand...

When I did darkroom printing, I used Tmax 400 (the old Tmax 400 not the current one) on ilford MG-IV-FB very successfully. People who claim that Tmax is worthless are usually not careful workers, able to give it the very precise exposure and developing it requires for good results. I have used Tmax 100, 400, and 3200 for 15 years with no regrets.
 
I see this has developed into a debate mainly between Tri-X and TMY-400. I can agree that Tri-X is an excellent choice for a trip, where there may be no opportunity to correct mistakes. For our trip to France last year, I took more Tri-X than anything else.

So what else did I take? I shot some architectural stuff with Delta 400 Pro. I like the sharp, detailed look of it, as well as the way it renders tones. And I took some 100 speed film as well. The trouble with bringing only 400 film, especially with a Hassie or Rollei, is that your top shutter speed is only 1/500. So think of your basic exposure on a sunny day: 1/500 between 11 and 16. That leaves no room at all for opening up to soften a background. And that's why 35mmdelux asked if you will be using an ND filter.

This is why I will throw some Tri-X, some Delta 400 Pro, some Delta 100 Pro, and some Plus-X or FP-4 into the bag. I probably won't use it all, but I am able to select the film that seems best for the subject and the lighting conditions once I see what they are. And with a Hassie and a Rollei, with 12 shots per roll, you won't be stuck with the wrong film in the camera for very long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom