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
Don't buy a new film on the basis of anyone's or everyone's recommendation for a long trip. Use a film you know and trust! (and like too!)
 
I don't think the OP needs anymore recommendations for her trip. She wrote it in 2006!!! BUt I guess we can still discuss ther merits of the question Tmax or TriX
 
Tri-X for simple reasons. If you're new to black and white, Tri-X (esp. if you're developing yourself...). It's kinda like D76 if you're developing. Start w/ D76, then wonk around with other developers. Start your black and white experience with good ole Tri-X, the "standard", then work your way out toward different film (/developer) combos. A good, practical reason is it's very forgiving - and it's not like it doesn't look good. This is especially true in medium format.
 
Sorry for the silly questions
1) I see most of you overexpose by 2/3 - 1 stop the 400 iso. When you go to develop, you of course calculate for it, that is just a trick to have a finer grain or what?

2) if I'd ask the same question for FAST B/W film, which among Neopan 1600, T-Max 3200 and Delta 3200 would be the most forgiving roll with the smoother tones, keeping fine grain as LESS important here in the equation? I have experienced a terrible trend of T-max 3200 to have whites completely lost already at + 0.5 / +1 as well blacks too deep within -1 EV. Sometimes I'd like them, sometimes I'd like a more forgiving roll.

What's your opinion here - without stealing the post to the OP ?
 
Last edited:
italy74 said:
2) if I'd ask the same question for FAST B/W film, which among Neopan 1600, T-Max 3200 and Delta 3200 would be the most forgiving roll with the smoother tones, keeping fine grain as LESS important here in the equation?
Click to expand...

Here are examples of all three films, followed by my own opinion of them:

This was shot on Delta 3200 rated at 1600:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2382/1750654336_2513cbf517.jpg

This was shot on P3200 rated at 1600:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/108/295737483_4814bca147.jpg

And finally Neopan 1600 rated at 800:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2092/2054065801_b86954ddf2.jpg

My own take on these films is that Delta 3200 is the fastest (in other words it has the most shadow detail) but personally I find it a bit flat. It just doesn't have a great range of tones and the grain is rather ugly. P3200 is tonally very nice and has beautiful grain, albeit rather large. I think its true speed is about 1000. Neopan 1600 is nothing like 1600 in real life -- see the lack of detail in the jacket? In fact I can't see much difference between Neopan 400 and 1600.

Now here's Tri-X at 1600:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3360/3310053204_8b7c01a9ba.jpg

I'd be the first to admit that this isn't a scientific test but in my view Tri-X is as fast as Neopan 1600 -- or faster -- if you push it a bit. Certainly I think that Tri-X is a true 400 film and I cannot understand why anyone would want to under-rate it. For example:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/84/234092766_c4c55a4bc6_o.jpg

If there's something wrong with the tones here, please let me know what it is!
 
Hey Dino, I can't really argue with Lawrence's analytical comparison, but I just like the look of Delta 3200 pulled to 1600 in HC110 dilution h, using minimal agitation. That's 22 minutes at 20°, agitating for 10 seconds every 3 minutes. P3200 has always struck me as kinda blocky.
 
Hi guys
thanks for your replies. If I have to tell the truth, Tri-X at 1600 is what really impressed me. Something that I couldn't have expressed correctly is:
Usually I shoot at the rated aperture (my "fault"), thus rolls are developed and printed according to this. When it happens I have a shot done at +1 or -1 of course I DON'T develop all the roll for it and hope the emulsion is however enough "strong" to deal with it: "Ok" - I think - "I'll have a clearer/brighter or darker image but I expect details (at least a bit) to be there". Still, I have a crucifix appended to a white wall of a church which covers most of frame -where I have overexposed a bitnot to have a large grey wall - which looks "flying" (well, in this case it could be considered "artistic") Still, shadows on people jackets down (I was shooting from an elevated position) are too deeps and dark to be useful. I'm not Koudelka with his "dwarf old woman" who looks emerging from the shadows of the road...

Another point that I haven't expressed correctly.. keep in mind I give my b/w prints to a lab so I have to rely only on their "standard" work to develop the whole roll, I don't do them by myself ( I honestly haven't the space for it in home, at least not with my wife in the same flat )

Lawrence, just a curioisty.. the man in the 1st picture is Sting or a sosia?
 
Last edited:
Bill, to be honest, aside the reportage style of the image, which is for sure the strongest thing one can note (and I can only imagine how much you were in a rush to take it - I wouldn't have got it for sure in such chaos), I find it a bit too dark, especially on the bottom part. I'd be glad to see even a "calmer" image where you can prove a wider exposure latitude of the roll you used, thanks again.
 
Last edited:
italy74 said:
Lawrence, just a curioisty.. the man in the 1st picture is Sting or a sosia?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is Sting.

Personally I do develop my films in a small flat and it doesn't take up much space at all -- no need for a darkroom. You can use a daylight loading tank -- made by Jobo -- or else a changing bag with a conventional stainless steel or Paterson tank. It really isn't that difficult and the the experience of seeing your negatives come out exactly as you developed them is highly rewarding. Other flat-dwellers can be sold the idea on the basis that it's a lot cheaper than taking them to a lab ;)
 
italy74 said:
Bill, to be honest, aside the reportage style of the image, which is for sure the strongest thing one can note (and I can only imagine how much you were in a rush to take it - I wouldn't have got it for sure in such chaos), I find it a bit too dark, especially on the bottom part. I'd be glad to see even a "calmer" image where you can prove a wider exposure latitude of the roll you used, thanks again.
Click to expand...

You're 100% right. It was a "hot" scene and I should've opened it up an f-stop or two. I'm gonna correct in photoshop.

A brighter one (CV21/4 on a Canon Model P):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrs111445/3640599468/sizes/l/
 
Last edited:
lawrence said:
...
I'd be the first to admit that this isn't a scientific test but in my view Tri-X is as fast as Neopan 1600 -- or faster -- if you push it a bit. Certainly I think that Tri-X is a true 400 film and I cannot understand why anyone would want to under-rate it. ...
Click to expand...

In the end the most important thing is which film you personally like and want to use, but let me say a few things:

It is not really meaningful to talk about the speed of a film without bringing the developer into the equation. Contrary to what is often said in forums, the choice of the developer might move the speed point maybe 2/3 or 1 stop, but not more. When I say "speed" I refer to the actual speed the film has in the given developer, i.e. the speed at which a zone 1 exposure has a log density of 0.1. This ensures full shadow detail.

So while the developer might not have a huge effect on the effective speed, it will give you a very specific characteristic curve and especially modify the highlights, e.g. a compensating developer or a two bath developer will develop highlights in a very different manner compared to a "standard" dev.

It's always a good way to only mention the speed of the film in question together with the developer used. I also like to use EI instead of ISO to stress that I'm not talking about the manufacturers measurements according to ISO but to my own measurements and / or experience.

The second point I'd like to make is that metering usually plays a bigger role than the actual speed in casual tests like yours. Now, I don't know how you metered the scenes, but it's obvious that the Neopan shot was of a quite uniformly lit scene, while Tri-X was used for a very contrasty subject. An averaging meter will measure a lot of black and a speck of white in the Tri-X shot and will try to pull all that black around the person to a mid grey. This would result in an overexposed image (after all, the background should be black, not mid grey). By raising the speed by, say, two stops you compensate for that effect, but that doesn't make Tri-X a 1600 film! It just means that it's a ISO 400 film and you metered for the background to be black and the face to be at zone 6 or so!

The way I would recommend handling this is: Measure the actual speed of your film by shooting a few test frames of a grey card at different EV. Find the frame with a log density of 0.1 to find the actual speed. Set your meter to that speed and keep it there! Compensate for metering troubles by using the exposure compensation of your camera or hand-held meter. This eliminates TONS of confusion regarding the speed of films.

By the way, my own testing of Neopan 1600 and Tri-X in Diafine revealed Tri-X to have a real speed of EI 400, Neopan 1600 to have one of EI 800 and Neopan 400 to have one of EI 320. The characteristic curves are available on my web site.

Regards,
Philipp
 
Philipp, Lawrence... sorry for my ignorance here, but I couldn't follow your reasoning..
exactly how did you get that Tri-X shot? Just spot metering on the "highlighted" face of the miner and then underexposing two stops (it seems the more likely thing, but I can't think of which kind of light could enlighten his face so strong to be still (so) readable even underexposed 2 EV) or you just reworked it in the darkroom or both?
I had a similar shot (spot metered to the face of the priest's housekeeper of my parrish taking advantage by the strong afternoon light reflected on her face by the floor and then underexposing -1 EV so that the already darker church mostly vanished around her: so she was in the smoother half-light but well readable) but I honestly wonder what was your light source there... A lamp or torch very close to the miner? It looks there's a small front light and I see the catchlights in his eyes
 
Last edited:
italy74 said:
Philipp, Lawrence... sorry for my ignorance here, but I couldn't follow your reasoning..
exactly how did you get that Tri-X shot? Just spot metering on the "highlighted" face of the miner and then underexposing two stops (it seems the more likely thing, but I can't think of which kind of light could enlighten his face so strong to be still (so) readable even underexposed 2 EV) or you just reworked it in the darkroom or both?...
Click to expand...

I don't know how he made that shot, but what I said only really applies if you use an averaging meter. In a contrasty scene, the meter will tend to overexpose (because of the black background), thus overexposing the scene, which might make you think that the film is more sensitive than it really is.

If you use a spot meter then you're pretty much automatically doing it right! I would spot meter on the face and give one stop more exposure than indicated (to place the face on zone 6), using the real speed of the film, i.e. EI 400 for Tri-X. The strength of the light is no variable in this reasoning, because this will be incorporated in the meter's measurement (i.e. zone 3 is zone 3, no matter what the light is, as long as you meter correctly).

Regards,
Philipp
 
italy74 said:
Just spot metering on the "highlighted" face of the miner and then underexposing two stops (it seems the more likely thing, but I can't think of which kind of light could enlighten his face so strong to be still (so) readable even underexposed 2 EV) or you just reworked it in the darkroom or both?....I honestly wonder what was your light source there... A lamp or torch very close to the miner? It looks there's a small front light and I see the catchlights in his eyes
Click to expand...

The only light source was the light on my helmet. I'd set the meter on my M6TTL to 1,600 and the reading was off the miner's face (no compensation -- I was assuming 18% reflectance or thereabouts). I then pushed the Tri-X to 1,600 in stock D76.
 
philipp.leser said:
By the way, my own testing of Neopan 1600 and Tri-X in Diafine revealed Tri-X to have a real speed of EI 400, Neopan 1600 to have one of EI 800 and Neopan 400 to have one of EI 320. The characteristic curves are available on my web site.
Click to expand...
That's interesting -- I'm surprised at the results. I'm curious as to why you chose Diafine because I've heard that it's better with the older emulsions (since they are thicker they can absorb and retain more of Bath A). Is it because Diafine develops closer to finality than other developers?
 
lawrence said:
That's interesting -- I'm surprised at the results. I'm curious as to why you chose Diafine because I've heard that it's better with the older emulsions (since they are thicker they can absorb and retain more of Bath A). Is it because Diafine develops closer to finality than other developers?
Click to expand...

Well, for one, I really really like the convenience of Diafine. It's extremely cheap and easy to use. It only produces chemical waste once a year when I have to mix a new batch.

The other reason I like it is that I found it produces negatives I like with a few films. The films that looks very good in Diafine are Fuji Acros and Kodak Tri-X in my opinion. Those two are my main films. For low-light situations I sometimes use Neopan 1600 (I used to use Delta 3200, but that's a t-grain film and needs DD-X or something similar), which also works well in Diafine.

Basically, Diafine works alright with all non-t-grain emulsions and gives box speed with most of those. Some combinations are less great than others (Tri-X looks better than Neo 400, e.g.).

One problem is that it's impossible to control the contrast with Diafine, but I'm just accepting that as a fact; it's still a very easy to use and economic developer even if it means that some films (Acros) usually end up at grade 1 for normal negatives. I suspect this is the reason why some people will for example rate Tri-X at EI 1250 in Diafine. Losing a few stops in the shadows brings the overall contrast down.

It doesn't give the finest grain (except with Fuji Acros 100. That film is absolutely gorgeous in Diafine!), but I like the somewhat old-fashioned tonality it gives with most films.

It's also nice that it's basically impossible to get blown-out highlights with Diafine (when solution A is used up, it's used up).

Regards,
Philipp
 
Tri-X has the greatest range of the bunch and IMO the best looking tonality and grain.
You can push it to 1250 or 1600 without much trouble
There is a good reason why they call Tri-X the King of Black and White Films.

I've shot the new TMAX400-2 and was very impressed by how fine grained it was.
But it seemed to have less range than Tri-X, especially in the highlights. Still, a very nice film.

PS: I agree that Diafine is something special. Tri-X pushed to 800 or 1250 is pretty darn impressive in Diafine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom