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
3js said:
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..
Click to expand...

And that just goes to show the benefit of experience and how the empirical method allows one to find one's own preferences. I'm sure we'll agree to disagree on this one, 3js. Different strokes and all that...
 
I think delta is magical, even though it is new grain stuff, it can get very classy!
 

Attachments

  • 273074082_753fbcae60_o.jpg
    273074082_753fbcae60_o.jpg
    92.9 KB · Views: 0
Russ said:
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.
Click to expand...
Delta 400 is nice too :) Just finished a 100' roll of it last week. Can't say however it blows Tri-X away in any respect other than graininess. And at normal dilutions (below 1:100) of Rodinal, Delta 400 is horrible.. TX is great in everything :)

It is hard to go really wrong with any of the films mentioned though.
 
3js said:
No, it can't, if you want a decent print, as the results of a two stop over will be grainy as h*ll. :)
Click to expand...
I admit I have low standards when it comes to grain :) To me other factors take priority, like, having actually something printable in highlights.

The shot below is 400TX pushed to 1600. Despite the push (which doesn't help contrast) it was still possible to recover the image from that huge plasma panel behind the people. I didn't measure exact difference in EV, but am confident there were many: it was murky evening and the monitor was so bright you nearly squint looking at it.
 

Attachments

  • protesters_luka_640.jpg
    protesters_luka_640.jpg
    66.8 KB · Views: 0
3js said:
No, it can't, if you want a decent print, as the results of a two stop over will be grainy as h*ll. :)
Click to expand...
If so, then you don't know how to treat it. Tastes may vary, so please keep that in mind as well.
 
I would have to agree that Neopan is a very good option. Availability is an issue; aside from that, after TX it would be my other choice, and I could get VERY comfortable with it.
 
TriX. Xtol or D76. Reasonable grain, forgiving and calssical tones. Gives decent speed in Xtol (I rate at 320)
 
Thanks for all the replies. i guess I could take a little of everything! but then I'll have to choice once I get to my destination...Unfortunately I haven't experimented enough with any of these films, It seems most people lean towards Tri-X as all around best. I do like all the films I mentioned in different ways, its just choosing the way that is tough
 
If you live in the USA take Tri-X, if in Europe then HP5+, as a mather of principle, but they are both verry good in X-tol stock IMHO...
Good luck on your trip :) !
 
I shot nothing but Delta 400, processed in XTOL for five years and love the combo. Delta has the fine-T grain advantages of TMAX, but is not as demanding as TMAX in terms of processing consistency. You can get great results with all of the films you listed; but you have to know what each film is going to do when you press the shutter button. About a year ago (when Freestyle dropped their off-label version of Delta 400), I switched to Neopan. It has a more pronounced grain structure than Delta 400, but I find it very pleasing. I also have been using Patrick Gainer's Vitamin C developer, which gives a little more grain than XTOL.

FWIW, I think that Tri-X will be the last b&w film standing (rank prediction . . . no inside knowledge) and so if you were standardizing on one film for the foreseeable future, Tri-X would be a good choice, IMHO.

Ben Marks
 
When you said medium format, that sealed it. Tri-X! It is incredibile and the grain of the new formula is exceptional. I have use HP-5 and it is soooo close, but TriX is a bit cheaper. I love its tonality and since your lenses should stop down to f22, light shouldn't be too much of a problem. Enjoy!
 
My issue with Delta 400 is its speed...I find it slower than TriX and HP5 by a good half stop is not more.

Whilst Neopan 400 is a decent film, in side to sides against TriX and Hp5+ I find it has less smooth tonal transitions. I remember seeing this commented in a film test in a mag years back and thought the test was prob at fault but what do I find when compared beside TrIX? The same thing. New Tri X does give it a run for its money in grain terms and to my eyes has a far smoother tonal scale and more classical look. Neopan makes great speed tho and has a super clear film base for short print times. Dont get me wrong I think it is a good film, but TriX to me is more subtle when you want it to be and has better acutance. Neopan is a bit soft to my eyes.
 
Tri-X in MF is a wonderful emulsion. I think there are two versions of this emulsion, one is a "pro" version that is rated 320 by Kodak, and the two emulsions do indeed have different curves, or at least they used to. I have had great results from both. The jump in quality that you get going up a film size has always seemed to me to be much more dramatic than between, say, brands of camera or lens within the same film format. Have a great trip!

Ben Marks
 
I may be a heretic, but I much prefer the look of BW400CN (replacement for T400CN) C-41 black and white film to the traditional silver negative films. It is far smoother in tonality and has far higher resolution than any of the silvergrain films. I used to be a big fan of Tmax 400 (and Tmax 3200P for low light work) and ascorbate deverlopers, but the chromagenic films are more forgiving of overexposure, and have the low graininess of 100 ISO silvergrain films despite being 4X faster. Also they are more convenient for me, since a pro lab can develop the negatives, so I only have to worry about printing the images.
 
I shoot Tri-X at 200 for (35mm and 120, 320 for 4x5 version). This gives me a good .10 density above fog and emulsion for Zone I -- and developed in HC110B (development time you have to determine based on your enlarger or scanner). Total range is smooth, good blacks, good detail in lower zones, nice whites, excellent contrast, excellent sharpness and I just scanned Tri-x developed this way 30 years ago and they look like new. I do not like Tri-X at 400, however. On the other hand I am getting old and do not adapt to change well. Ansel Adams used this film and developer but I bet he would be experimenting with new approaches if he were alive. But this works for me. And I can find Tri-X easily.

I may try some other methods as I watch this thread.
 
I have been using Tri-x (120) rated @200 asa and pull processed in Kodak XTol dev. 1:1 for some time now with excellent results.

Using 35mm film (rarely now) I would use the slower tabular grain films such as Delta 100 or Fuji Acros, but for more speed in 35mm format, if I had to choose I would go for the TMY over the tri-x simply for the reason of reduced grain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom