The Tri X Factor

[RFluhver]

For your reading pleasure, "The Tri X Factor".

"t was Tri-X that created the possibility and then the demand for urgency, contrast, grain and drama in photography. It revitalised photography as a whole, but black-and-white photography in particular. In doing so it drew attention to the fact that, in spite of the incursion of colour and all the billions of hues and shades of digital, there remains something natural and true about the monochrome photograph, something that springs directly from the camera itself."

(Apologies if this has been posted on this elsewhere on this forum, but I could not see it).

 

[pete hogan]

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Mark C]

Thanks. Interesting reading, a fair bit of BS, and a grain of truth (pun intended).

 

[rolfe]

Nice piece!

AFAIK, Tri-X is secure for now...

 

[Mark C]

Where's Roger for the defense?

 

[traveler_101]

For your reading pleasure, "The Tri X Factor".

"t was Tri-X that created the possibility and then the demand for urgency, contrast, grain and drama in photography. It revitalised photography as a whole, but black-and-white photography in particular. In doing so it drew attention to the fact that, in spite of the incursion of colour and all the billions of hues and shades of digital, there remains something natural and true about the monochrome photograph, something that springs directly from the camera itself."

(Apologies if this has been posted on this elsewhere on this forum, but I could not see it).

Thanks for posting this link. I bookmarked it.

Observations/issues:

(1) was photography in need of "revitalisation"? Certainly b&w's association with reportage and realism was already important in the 1930s and 1940s.

(2) the war was filmed in b&w; this partly accounts for the association of b&w with realism

(3) "Tri-X, with its narrower tonal range, seldom looked flat and its harder, steelier style fitted the mood first of the realism of the Fifties, then of the casual, go anywhere, do anything mood of the Sixties." Realism of the fifties? Later the author characterises the Tri-X look as a "dirty grainy realism" . . . Tri-X produces a feeling of immediacy, but it is also quite beautiful, not necessarily a dirty look. I suppose he has certain photographers in mind?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Where's Roger for the defense?

Dear Mark,

Well, it's basically an empty puff piece by someone who knows very little about the history of fast films or indeed photography in general and who is a bit hazy on ASA, ISO and (speed) safety factors. The bit about the "pearly gradation" of earlier films is utter drivel too: there's plenty of work from the 30s that shows it up for the nonsense it is, including Brassai, Ronis, Rodchenko, Bill Brandt... For that matter I have a book of amateur pictures published in the late 1930s called "My Leica and I" with quite a lot of low-light stuff. The style and the "look" were both established long before Tri-X was available.

Yes, Tri-X was (is) one of the greatest films of all time, but this is not the sole reason for its its success. At least as importantly, it was made by Kodak in the USA, where World War Two had been a source of great financial profit (note: I am NOT talking about the human cost) so lots of Americans could afford it. European manufacturers and buyers were less well placed despite the existence of 35mm films as fast as, or faster than, Tri-X: Gevapan Press, Ilford HP3, HPS, the original Adox KB25 (25 DIN, not ASA), and lots more.

In other words, yes, it was/is a great film, but hysterical puff like this tells us very little. Things are not helped by the mind-set of those who apparently believe that if it didn't happen in the USA, and isn't reported in English, it didn't happen.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

If the simpe fact of TRI-X bulk film now shipped from American vendors like AMAZON, B&H photo etc. To european buyers, with a realistic price of $69.99 ( 50 Euros), compared to over €100,- Fotoimpex etc. IT is GREAT NEWS, no matter how many times you holler Salgado, Frank, HCB etc..

 

[Mark C]

Thanks Roger.

I'm a long time Tri-X fan, but thought that was a pretty heavy on bs. And even in the opposite direction; I've been waiting for someone to call them on the "narrower tonal range" thing. I'd say "what the heck does that mean", but I imagine it is just conflating shooting style and conditions with the the actual film.

Dear Mark,

Well, it's basically an empty puff piece by someone who knows very little about the history of fast films or indeed photography in general and who is a bit hazy on ASA, ISO and (speed) safety factors. The bit about the "pearly gradation" of earlier films is utter drivel too: there's plenty of work from the 30s that shows it up for the nonsense it is, including Brassai, Ronis, Rodchenko, Bill Brandt... For that matter I have a book of amateur pictures published in the late 1930s called "My Leica and I" with quite a lot of low-light stuff. The style and the "look" were both established long before Tri-X was available.

Yes, Tri-X was (is) one of the greatest films of all time, but this is not the sole reason for its its success. At least as importantly, it was made by Kodak in the USA, where World War Two had been a source of great financial profit (note: I am NOT talking about the human cost) so lots of Americans could afford it. European manufacturers and buyers were less well placed despite the existence of 35mm films as fast as, or faster than, Tri-X: Gevapan Press, Ilford HP3, HPS, the original Adox KB25 (25 DIN, not ASA), and lots more.

In other words, yes, it was/is a great film, but hysterical puff like this tells us very little. Things are not helped by the mind-set of those who apparently believe that if it didn't happen in the USA, and isn't reported in English, it didn't happen.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ansel]

If the simpe fact of TRI-X bulk film now shipped from American vendors like AMAZON, B&H photo etc. To european buyers, with a realistic price of $69.99 ( 50 Euros), compared to over €100,- Fotoimpex etc. IT is GREAT NEWS, no matter how many times you holler Salgado, Frank, HCB etc..

Regarding the 100ft rolls. Yes, cheaper in USA but you have to add import duties (which amazon charges in advance) and shipping. Works out at about 78 Euros in total, which is cheaper than buying here (in Spain) at 120 Euros, but only marginally cheaper than buying individual films.

You get about 18 rolls out of a 100 ft. Therefore Cost per roll is 4.3 Euros for the imported TRi-X. And 6.66 Euros per roll for the Spanish sourced bulk rolls. Neither seem worth it as you can pick up individual rolls for 4.99 Euros each here. There seems no reason at all to buy the bulk rolls in Europe as they work out more expensive.

p.s. I LOVE Tri-x. Best film ever in my opinion.

 

[Pioneer]

Interesting article about a terrific film written by someone who probably has never shot film in their life.

We live in an interesting world where digital photographers are trying to put the grain back in while film photographers are trying to develop their film in a way that minimizes the grain.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Interesting article about a terrific film written by someone who probably has never shot film in their life.

We live in an interesting world where digital photographers are trying to put the grain back in while film photographers are trying to develop their film in a way that minimizes the grain.

You may have summarized the yawning gulf at the heart of the article right here. I am ashamed that I did not see through it as clearly as you did.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I've been waiting for someone to call them on the "narrower tonal range" thing. I'd say "what the heck does that mean", but I imagine it is just conflating shooting style and conditions with the the actual film.

Dear Mark,

Highlight: Less than nothing, much like the majority of the rest of the article.

Cheers,

R.

 

[mfogiel]

Tri X is simply sexy, a rare balance between speed, sharpness, tonality and grain. In medium format it is really a difficult argument to insist on some other film, with a notable exception of HP5+.

 

[Sam Kanga]

Thanks for posting.

Unfortunately this is a fluff/puff piece which seems to be written by someone who doesn't know much about the subject. The sad thing is that the general reader will be mis-informed.

Here's one point: Tri-x is not a contrasty film. The way it has been used, and often pushed can increase contrast, but of course it is the slower Kodak b/w films (panatomic x and plus x) that are inherently more contrasty.

If your photos look contrasty, grainy, "dirty" you've either done that on purpose, or you've done something wrong.

I've used Tri-X and Hp-5 almost exclusively, and rarely even had to push them to 800. The brilliant thing about these faster b/w films is that one could shoot indoors with available light and then step outside and keep shooting.

Thanks
Sam

 

[Vics]

I find myself moving more and more in the direction of FP4+ in search of more contrast and finer grain and more moderate apertures. A lot of this article had me scratching my head and wondering which film they were writing about.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Film is not really very important.

It needs to be (a) consistent and (b) available.

Once these two conditions are met, and Ilford scores very high on both, then most competent photographers can adjust their working practices to suit. Yes, it's always bad when your favourite film is discontinued or worse still "improved" such as Fuji RF/RFP > Velvia. But unless you can adapt... well, it's probably time to quit anyway.

Cheers,

R.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Thanks for posting this.

Irrespective of the criticisms noted above, I'm glad to have read this article. It's a welcome reminder of my love of tri-x, and even if there are inaccuracies, it's still a good and important read for those who don't have a historian's pedantic perspective on the film.

Kinda reminds me of the argument people sometimes make about hating the use of classic/favorite songs in commercials. I don't really care if it's for a product I like or dislike. I'm just grateful for the opportunity to hear the music again.

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks for posting this.

Irrespective of the criticisms noted above, I'm glad to have read this article. It's a welcome reminder of my love of tri-x, and even if there are inaccuracies, it's still a good and important read for those who don't have a historian's pedantic perspective on the film.

Kinda reminds me of the argument people sometimes make about hating the use of classic/favorite songs in commercials. I don't really care if it's for a product I like or dislike. I'm just grateful for the opportunity to hear the music again.

It must be nice to have it work out that way. But for me it works differently. If it was just a little fluff piece in the first place I really could care less. But if it really is a piece of music that I love it bothers me a lot.

That piece of music usually awakens thoughts and memories in my mind. Though not always those thoughts are frequently pleasant and very enjoyable. That advertising company knows this and they are trying to cash in on those memories by playing that music. In essence they are trying to manipulate my memories into making me more inclined to purchase that product because I now associate it with pleasant thoughts.

I do not like that!

 

[Sparrow]

Interesting read ... I always assumed it was something to do with the newspaper industry back in the day, Offset-Press/Halftone on newsprint would be hard pressed 80 lpi would pushing it with regard to resolution and grain ... and tonality completely unimportant, a perfect application for tri-x I would have thought

I've never understood why people prefer it over hp5