The Tri X Factor

[Rangefinderfreak]

One point I always forget to add, as it is "built in" in my film choice: Bulk film and IXMOO leica casettes... I have about 30 of them (Tom A has more than double that amount)
You see, It is no need to load 36 frames into a IXMOO, 20-25 is just fine, it is still the double amount of exposures you do on a 120 roll, just enough to get one subject covered.
So, I am not actually comparing the price, I am talking about AVAILABILITY. When I heard about ALARIS, I thought: That`s it, I buy five cans of 400ft Double X 5222, now I am down to one.. Time to switch back to TRI-X...

 

[Roger Hicks]

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!

Nor do I, but it's so transparent that it's normally VERY easy to ignore. Most of the time I couldn't tell you what was advertised in an ad I had just seen -- simply because I buy very, very few of the things that are advertised. I've only ever bought one new car in my life; I don't normally buy processed foods; my mobile 'phone is pay-as-you-go...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Drago]

Kodak are living on a niche market ala TRI-X. Excuse me, but except Tri-X , what else do they got ? Tmax - ok, it's good film, but it's modern film if you know what i mean.

 

[Ansel]

One point I always forget to add, as it is "built in" in my film choice: Bulk film and IXMOO leica casettes... I have about 30 of them (Tom A has more than double that amount)
You see, It is no need to load 36 frames into a IXMOO, 20-25 is just fine, it is still the double amount of exposures you do on a 120 roll, just enough to get one subject covered.
So, I am not actually comparing the price, I am talking about AVAILABILITY. When I heard about ALARIS, I thought: That`s it, I buy five cans of 400ft Double X 5222, now I am down to one.. Time to switch back to TRI-X...

Excellent point. I can see this being very useful for exposing films at different EIs, etc.

 

[Ansel]

Kodak are living on a niche market ala TRI-X. Excuse me, but except Tri-X , what else do they got ? Tmax - ok, it's good film, but it's modern film if you know what i mean.

Tri-X is the best selling B&W film in the world. Portra is also excellent. Tmax is superb. D76 and Xtol are still very popular. Ektar is a new film from them. If you cannot make wonderful images with that lot then there is no hope for you!

 

[Steve M.]

I'm not sure why Corbjin doesn't know what to do w/ his 2.500 expiring rolls of Tri-X....sell them now! Sure, he could keep them and keep testing as he shoots it up, but it isn't exactly the best way to get consistency. I stopped buying expired film secondhand because you have no idea how it was stored. High temps and ISO 400 film are not a good thing. I used to shoot HP5 occasionally but it is a poor substitute for Tri-X. I'm amazed someone would prefer it to the yellow box, but everyone's different. One of the great things about Tri-X is if you need an ISO 100, 200, 400, or 800 film, it's all you need.

Tri-X is a wonderful film, and the new formulation has smooth, tight grain. D76 is a perfect developer for it. In fact, I think Tr-X and D76 are the best selling film and developer in the world, and we're talking about a developer that was created nearly 100 yeard ago. That combination is essentially all I shoot, and I agree w/ the article, it gives a look that is unique. Pretty mistake proof too. I never worried about it going away, as I figured Kodak would just sell the formula for a fortune to someone else.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm not sure why Corbjin doesn't know what to do w/ his 2.500 expiring rolls of Tri-X....sell them now! Sure, he could keep them and keep testing as he shoots it up, but it isn't exactly the best way to get consistency. I stopped buying expired film secondhand because you have no idea how it was stored. High temps and ISO 400 film are not a good thing. I used to shoot HP5 occasionally but it is a poor substitute for Tri-X. I'm amazed someone would prefer it to the yellow box, but everyone's different. One of the great things about Tri-X is if you need an ISO 100, 200, 400, or 800 film, it's all you need.

Tri-X is a wonderful film, and the new formulation has smooth, tight grain. D76 is a perfect developer for it. In fact, I think Tr-X and D76 are the best selling film and developer in the world, and we're talking about a developer that was created nearly 100 yeard ago. That combination is essentially all I shoot, and I agree w/ the article, it gives a look that is unique. Pretty mistake proof too. I never worried about it going away, as I figured Kodak would just sell the formula for a fortune to someone else.

Highlight 1: And of course vice versa. If everyone liked the same films/developers/etc. there'd be only one of each. The fact that there is such a variety is clear proof that while Tri-X is very good indeed, it's not the only superb ISO 400 film.

Highlight 2: It doesn't work that way. Film coating is a bit like brewing: as well as science it relies on astrology, terroir, water, personality, unrecorded expertise... Besides, who would the "someone else" be? Who has even the coating machines, let alone the expertise?

Cheers,

R.

 

[GarageBoy]

Articles like this make me wonder how many Tri X club members are there because of the legend. Tri X has gone through so many changes
It's like comparing the LS series of Chevrolet small blocks to the original 1955 version
Deep down inside, they're related, but one has 50 years + of maturing

 

[pete hogan]

Legend and quality control are a powerful combination.

 

[Mark C]

Legend, quality control, and a great film are an even more powerful combination.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Articles like this make me wonder how many Tri X club members are there because of the legend. Tri X has gone through so many changes
It's like comparing the LS series of Chevrolet small blocks to the original 1955 version
Deep down inside, they're related, but one has 50 years + of maturing

But as others have said, it's the legend.

Many people don't take photographs. They buy cameras and film in the simple-minded belief that Nikon vs Canon vs Leica, or Kodak vs Ilford vs Fuji, matter more than their (usually negligible) talent.

OF COURSE some cameras (and films, and...) suit some people better than others. You'd be crazy not to use the one you prefer. But you'd be even crazier to deny that preferences exist and make sense. You'd be certifiable if you imagine that above a level of mere adequacy, the film and materials make more difference than talent and application.

Your parallel is therefore exact. Is an original Porsche 356 the same as a current 911? Hardly. Are they both Porsches? Clearly. Old Tri-X was a great film. New Tri-X is a great film. Are they the same...?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

When I was a young photo asisstant to the great Finnish reportage photographers here in Helsinki, the formula for their work was leica M, TRI-X and IXMOO Cassettes and bulk loading the film. That is my method also today, 40 years later. What is different is the development of the TRI-X: Then it was D-76 in a large "dip & dunk" tank, the developer was used longer than 3-4 months, several hundred rolls went thru a 5 gallon tank and it was replinshed with fresh D-76. Now it is all those different "one shot" developers, Rodinal, D-76 diluted 1:1 or Acufine or some other stuff. The quality, contrast and grain varies wildly. When I compare my TRI-X negatives from 1969 to today, the feel and quality was much better way back then. The soft working used developer gave great results ! I remember we assistants had to "burn in" the new batch of D-76 with expired film or end pieces of the leaders to loaded cassettes...

 

[GarageBoy]

My dad remembers picking dead insects out of his photo club's aged soup tank before use, negs were still consistent

 

[Oren Grad]

Clearly. Old Tri-X was a great film. New Tri-X is a great film. Are they the same...?

Yes, in that the core sensitometric characteristics that define TX's tonal character and handling behavior and that distinguish it from other films on the market have remained remarkably stable - at least over the ~35 years I've been using it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

When I was a young photo asisstant to the great Finnish reportage photographers here in Helsinki, the formula for their work was leica M, TRI-X and IXMOO Cassettes and bulk loading the film. That is my method also today, 40 years later. What is different is the development of the TRI-X: Then it was D-76 in a large "dip & dunk" tank, the developer was used longer than 3-4 months, several hundred rolls went thru a 5 gallon tank and it was replinshed with fresh D-76. Now it is all those different "one shot" developers, Rodinal, D-76 diluted 1:1 or Acufine or some other stuff. The quality, contrast and grain varies wildly. When I compare my TRI-X negatives from 1969 to today, the feel and quality was much better way back then. The soft working used developer gave great results ! I remember we assistants had to "burn in" the new batch of D-76 with expired film or end pieces of the leaders to loaded cassettes...

What you were doing was "seasoning" the D76 by loading it with bromide, thereby completely changing the character of the developer and reducing the effective film speed by about half. To get EI 400 the film had therefore to be over-developed. Seasoned developers are wonderfully consistent and long-lived, though ideally D76 should be be replenished with D76R not just D76.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ronald_H]

Film is not really very important.

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


R.

Indeed but there is another factor: Consistency of the photographer. As an overenthousiastic not too unskilled amateur, I tend to use all kinds of cameras and films side by side. Hence my negs could (should) be more consistent.

Despite all the other advantages of Tri-X, it is also quite forgiving, it is actually hard to end up with an unusable negative. Even better, just rate at ISO1250 and plunk it in Diafine if you want a no-brain solution. And in dicussions like this I always want to show that I actually still make photographs and develop and print my own. Legend is nice, but reality always wins in my book. And I simply love Tri-X for what it can do.


Dani - The Jacks by Ronald_H, on Flickr

 

[Roger Hicks]

Indeed but there is another factor: Consistency of the photographer. As an overenthousiastic not too unskilled amateur, I tend to use all kinds of cameras and films side by side. Hence my negs could (should) be more consistent.

Despite all the other advantages of Tri-X, it is also quite forgiving, it is actually hard to end up with an unusable negative. Even better, just rate at ISO1250 and plunk it in Diafine if you want a no-brain solution. And in dicussions like this I always want to show that I actually still make photographs and develop and print my own. Legend is nice, but reality always wins in my book. And I simply love Tri-X for what it can do.

Dear Ronald,

Same with HP5...

Cheers,

R

 

[Mark C]

Yes, in that the core sensitometric characteristics that define TX's tonal character and handling behavior and that distinguish it from other films on the market have remained remarkably stable - at least over the ~35 years I've been using it.

Thanks for saying it better than I could.

What I've seen in the decades I've shot Tri-X is a slow steady improvement in the product. The basic look remains the same to me, but the grain is a bit finer. Other subtle changes I see may well be from my changes over the years more than the film.

I'm sure if I'd been born where HP3 was the norm, then I would be just as happily shooting HP5 Plus today. It is a very nice film; I have no idea if the Ilford product has kept its core look as much as Tri-X, or even if it should have.

On the replenishment side. It seems to have been fairly common to replenish bulk tanks of D76 with D76 instead of replenisher. I have only heard of it in journalism sort of settings and know some people swore the results were better. Seems odd, but I won't argue with success.

 

[Zonan]

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.

Not the first post of the past few days with a chip on its shoulder. Lighten up!

 

[Oren Grad]

I'm sure if I'd been born where HP3 was the norm, then I would be just as happily shooting HP5 Plus today. It is a very nice film; I have no idea if the Ilford product has kept its core look as much as Tri-X, or even if it should have.

Thanks for your kind comment!

FWIW, although TX is my standard roll film, HP5 Plus is my standard sheet film. Alas, TX isn't offered as sheet film. Although the characteristic curve and grain structure of HP5 Plus are somewhat different from those of TX, it's similarly forgiving in the field and in the darkroom.

Before anybody speaks up: TXP is a different emulsion from TX, with very different characteristics. The marketing decision by some unknown EK executive many moons ago to name them both "Tri-X" was perverse in the extreme.