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
anaanda

anaanda

Well-known
Local time
2:51 PM
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
210
Hi All,
I am going on a long trip on Sunday and want to choose one film. I have decided on the speed of 400 for versatility but I can't decide which one to use. Please tell your experiences with these films, Tmax 400, Tri-x 400 ,Hp5 and Delta 400. Their characteristics, positives, negatives.
Thanks
 
My experience recently is limited, there are others who will probably have more insight, but ...

Tri-X and HP5 share a lot of similarities; I prefer Tri-X slightly (more pleasing grain structure for my taste), but I've seen some HP5 work here and elsewhere that I really, really like. Both are easier to process, IMO, than the Delta/Tmax films.

Delta & Tmax are pickier on exposure and processing, but tonality is different. "Smoother" look when done right mostly due to the tabular grain structure.

On a trip I'd go for Tri-X or HP5 since you can't reshoot, and also because you don't have time to experiment with the others. JMO.

Edit: I shoot Tri-X @ 200 or 250.
 
Tmax 400 for sure. Fine fine grain. Smooth tones. Only caveat is to process it properly. Best is Xtol. Have fun....
Steve
 
I definately prefer Tmax over Tri-X. Tmax has better grain, tonality, and latitude. My second choice would be HP5, there again, better than Tri-X - unless you like the Tri-X look.
 
I do my Tmax in Kodak developer 1:4 dilution. Tmax is generally less contrasty relative to Trix 400. Both can be pushed up 3 stops and developed. If you go in Europe, take TriX. If you go to places with more harsh light, take Tmax.
If you are software dependent take either and go. Good luck
 
Last edited:
Tri-x or HP5. IMO there's no contest, TMY and Delta don't respond well to overexposure in the way Tri-x or HP5 do so doesn't pull nicely in bright conditions. I've never pushed TMY because I didn't even like it at box speed. If I had to choose one film forever Tri-x or HP5 would be my choice depending on price and availability.
 
Last edited:
Right, Tri-X. TMY is nice and less grainy, but tri-x is forgiving, looks great and works fine in about any developer.
 
35mmdelux said:
will you be using a ND filter?
Click to expand...


no Nd filter, I just bought a Hasselblad and a Rolleiflex (I know they are not rangefinders), I don't have time to pick up any filters. I wanted to do medium format on this trip..
 
I haven't shot Tmax 400 in years but I think it has a slightly smoother grain, I really like Tri-X for it's versatility and wide tonal range. Here are a couple images.

Tri-X rated at 100, developed in D76 1:1
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=50627&cat=500&ppuser=489

Tri-X rated at 800 developed in Xtol 1:1
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=35623&cat=500&ppuser=489

IMHO, Tri-X is the best all around film for a variety of situations, especially when you don't know what the light will be. Tri-X is also probably the most available, I can pick a roll up at most grocery stores or walgreens, CVS, etc.

Good Luck!
Todd
 
anaanda said:
no Nd filter, I just bought a Hasselblad and a Rolleiflex (I know they are not rangefinders), I don't have time to pick up any filters. I wanted to do medium format on this trip..
Click to expand...


In that case I'd take Tri-X for sure, it really shines in 120 where grain is not as much an issue.

Tri-X at 200
1164924897.jpg


and at 400
0__1159373695.jpg


both with taken a rolleiflex on Tri-X.

Todd
 
markinlondon said:
Tri-x or HP5. IMO there's no contest, TMY and Delta don't respond well to overexposure in the way Tri-x or HP5 do so doesn't pull nicely in bright conditions. I've never pushed TMY .
Click to expand...
My experience is totally opposite of yours, TMax 400 is by far the best film to handle overexposure, no contest here, i`m afraid. You just have to know how to use it. I shoot around 200 films a year, mostly old rangefinders, and the shutters aren´t quite what they used to be 50 years ago... So I feed them T-max 400, and I can make a decent print out of even a 2 stop overexposured shot. Now with Tri-X that would be a pain in the, well you know where..
 
I would second Todd. Tri-X is pretty much one of the most versitile films around. I like its very long tonal scale and delicate tones. The grain, to my eyes, is very acceptable. Very forgiving.

To me, HP5 is too grainy sometimes. TMX is a bit to crisp for my liking. A little colder in tone than Tri-X. Haven't really tried Delta 400. Delta 100 is really nice, but you didn't ask about that one.

Drew
 
All of them are good. Just choose one and stick to it. But if I had to choose,
I would go for Tri-X,
 
3js said:
So I feed them T-max 400, and I can make a decent print out of even a 2 stop overexposured shot. Now with Tri-X that would be a pain in the, well you know where..
Click to expand...
Tri-X can handle more than that :)
 
Tri-X. More forgiving with new equipment and once-in-a-lifetime vacation shooting. Experiment with Tmax when you get back.
 
Neither one. Fuji Neopan 400, blows them both away. And if I couldn't use the Neopan 400, I'd go with Ilfords Delta 400.

Russ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom