TMAX 400 vs. Tri-X 400 vs. BW400CN

[efix]

Can anyone explain the difference, apart from the fact that BW400CN is chromogenic? (And are there any drawbacks/advantages in using chromogenic b&w film?)

I'm asking since I found out my Yashica rf only goes to 500 ISO, so faster emulsions are out of consideration. Now I'm looking for a nice 400 ISO film. Tried HP5+ and XP2 and didn't really care for both.

 

[thegman]

I'd say the drawbacks of chromogenic B&W film are:

1) Maybe it lacks the "feel" of some grainy B&W films, or indeed the extreme fine grain of some low speed films.

2) To develop at home, you'll need C41 chemicals

The advantages:

1) Smooth, nice tones.
2) Easy to scan, you can leave on ICE dust removal.
3) You can get it developed anywhere.

For T-Max and Tri-X, it's a modern/not so modern look thing, purely a matter of preference.

I like BW400CN, although it is similar to XP2, so if you didn't like that, you may not like BW400CN either.

I like Rollei Retro 400, it's an old-fashioned B&W film which really screams "black and white!", it's not like a colour shot converted to B&W, it's really contrasty when shot at box speed too.

If you'll consider colour film, I think Portra 400 is the 400 ISO film at the moment, you can over expose or under expose by multiple stops and still looks great, and it has the grain of an ISO 100 film.

 

[efix]

So TMAX would be the "more modern" looking film? From what I've seen from Tri-X, it seems to be a bit on the contrasty side for my taste.

I'm explicitly looking for a b&w white film, but I might in future also experiment with high-speed colour emulsions such as Portra 400 or Provia 400. (So many films, so little time ... ;-))

 

[Tim Gray]

BW400CN is chromogenic. It's not traditional silver, but dye clouds. It's also going to be much finer grained than the others. It is nominally just a bit more grainy than Ektar 100, though I think the shadow tones can get a bit grungy, especially when underexposed. It's more like XP2 than it is different, so if you didn't like that, then you probably won't like BW400CN. In my mind, they both seem to do better downrated more than the other 400 speed B&W films in consideration, and look best at around EI 200. I routinely shoot Tri-X, T-Max and (some) HP5+ at 400 or 320 and get good results. People will tell you that you can shoot it anywhere from 100-1600 on the same roll and get 'good' results. Guess what, you can do that with TMY and Tri-X too in most situations with a bit more work in post, just like what is done with BW400CN.

Tri-X and T-Max 400 (TMY) are both traditional films obviously. In my tests (all in XTOL), they have pretty much the same speed and push just about as well. There are some differences, but nothing I'd lose any sleep over. TMY is going to have finer grain, not that Tri-X is really all that grainy, at least in XTOL. TMY will resolve noticeably finer detail. Some larger details might look a bit sharper on smaller prints of Tri-X. TMY also has a bit less sensitivity to blue light, supposedly similar to Tri-X with a light yellow filter. This is by design. Tri-X has a more 'classic' look. They both have pretty straight curves according to the spec sheets, with Tri-X having a bit more of a toe. Tri-X also is said to perform better in Diafine if you use it. I have and it's pretty good stuff. Never tried TMY in it though.

Oh, and Tri-X is usually a cheaper. Sometimes only by 5-10 cents, sometimes by more.

I used to shoot a lot of Tri-X. Pretty much all I shot. It's a great film. I've started to shoot more TMY. Technically it's better. When I want a grainier look, I tend to go with TMZ and enjoy the full stop of speed over Tri-X and TMY. I still shoot Tri-X, just not as much as before. Once I got past the 'I prefer the traditional grain over the T-grain look' thing, I realized that TMY is one of the most amazing B&W films out there and really started to enjoy it.

In my opinion, they are pretty similar in most smaller prints or web posts; you'd have to tell people which one is which unless you had a side by side comparison. And I bet most people wouldn't be able to tell even then 🙂

 

[Tim Gray]

Oh, with respect to contrast, with both TMY and Tri-X, assuming the same scene, the contrast is going to be dependent on development and how you print or process your scans. Personally I'd discount any notion that one or the other is some how more or less contrasty. If you either of them having too much or too little contrast, adjust your development.

Many people online here at RFF and other places seem to prefer 'rich blacks' and stuff like that. Nothing wrong with it, but don't judge contrast in these films from some of the stuff you see online. If you expose either of them correctly, and adjust the scans (or the printing grade) on the final image correctly, you should be able to get pretty much any contrast you want out of either of these films.

 

[bobby_novatron]

I'm with gman and Tim Gray on this one. I think they described the differences quite well.

I have used t-max, tri-x, and BW400CN ... they're all excellent films, but for very different reasons.

My observations:

T-MAX

The 'new' T-Max film was released a few years ago now ... it's an extremely fine grained film medium-speed film, very 'modern' looking (not a bad thing), sharp & clear images but without looking 'digital'. Nice range of tones, from crisp whites to deep blacks. More subtle than BW400CN.

The issues with T-Max (for me) are that it is a little bit of a princess when it comes to developing. T-Max film likes T-Max developer, although it can be used with other products. But the 'best' results come from T-Max developer. And although T-Max developer is an excellent product, it is not recommended for stand development or longer development times. This means that T-Max film has a short window of developing time, around 5.5 minutes (generally). This does not give much room for user error -- and believe me, I have had my share of user error. 😉

TRI-X

An old, old emulsion. God, must be about 50 years old about now I would think. Somewhat grainy. Very 'old school' look to it. Tri-X is the favourite of many B&W photographers because it's so flexible. It has a huge exposure latitude and can be developed with lots of different developers.

But it depends if you like the look. It's more grainy than T-Max. Personally, I like torturing Tri-X and pushing it to 3200 ISO and developing it in D-76 to get a high-contrast look for nighttime & indoor shots. If I'm shooting in regular daylight, I actually prefer shooting Eastman 5222 'double-X', but this is not an easy film to find.

BW400CN

I like this film for its convenience and character. To my eyes it looks a lot like T-Max, but with slightly less sharpness and tonal gradation. It is a good product. Like Tim Gray said above, it's not designed like traditional film because it is C-41 process. I think that's why it has the character that it does.

Like gman said, you can get it developed anywhere -- which is a nice advantage. I use it when I'm on holidays and feel like shooting B&W and can't process my film anytime soon.

Like Tim Gray said, for most basic applications (web shots, scanning, decent mini-lab prints) BW400CN is fine.

 

[efix]

Thanks for your exhaustive reply, Tim! So TMAX definitely seems worth a look. I guess I'll end up trying all of them once 🙂

 

[mfogiel]

From the way you describe your results with XP2 and HP5, I believe there has been something wrong with your shooting/developing process.
1) XP2 is a film with a very nice tonal scale in the highlights, while the shadows die off and fall apart pretty fast. Moreover, the grain is inversely proportional to the amount of exposure: the more exposure the smaller the grain. Therefore, as a rule I was shooting XP2 at EI 200 - ypu can even shoot it at EI 50, and you will not blow the highlights. This film is a nice general purpose film, in my opinion particularly indicated for portraiture where you want smooth skin tones, or for shooting in bright sun. The same is true for Kodak BW400CN, minor differences are: Kodak film is slightly less sharp, slightly less fast and a bit more smooth with finer grain.
As to HP5+, this film, if properly exposed and developed, is probably the most beautiful tonally and one of most flexible B&W films ever made. It has somewhat big grain, but is quite sharp (good acutance). If you expose it at EI250 and develop in D76, you will see its full potential. Mind you, you can also push it to EI 1600 if needed, but it will become more grainy and contrasty.
I would advise you to try Tri X and Tmax 400. Tri X is similar to HP5+, with slightly smaller grain, and is even more flexible - the tonality is slightly "brighter". Tmax 400 is a modern film with very small grain, great sharpness, and a nice tonality, although it is less flexible, and can appear more "digital like" to the eye. I think, the key is that you should figure out what do you want above all from your film: tonality, small or big grain, acutance, speed? After shooting for many years, my preference is with Tri X - you can shoot it anywhere between EI 100 and 1600 with proper processing, you can aim for tighter grain and great tonality (by pulling) or for bigger grain and acutance (by pushing in semi stand).

 

[Robin Harrison]

I used to be a Tri-X man, but I now shoot T-Max for everyday normal street shooting and BW400CN for weekend breaks and holidays where I'm likely to shoot more than say five rolls. This is mainly a question of process. I like the control and economy of home development, but only if I'm doing two rolls a week. Any more than that and I find it a chore.

Comparing Tri-X to T-Max - the former is grittier, especially when under exposed. The latter is capable of greater resolution, and is a little more forgiving. I think the difference in character (far harder to express) is more significant than the technical differences in high magnification neg peeping. I should qualify this by saying I mainly used HC110 with Tri-X, and D76 with T-Max. I've very keen to give the T-Max developer a go, and I plan to do so in conjunction with moving my 100 speed film of choice from Acros to T-Max 100.

Comparing T-Max to BW400CN. I don't like either when thin, but that bottom of the curve does seem different somehow. Maybe someone else can explain if that is a function of B&W vs C41, or whether it's the actual curves. I prefer scanning the latter, but I prefer eyeing the negs from the former.

I would love a range of speeds to be available in C41 B&W. I know the 400 responds well to an extra stop of so just fine, but it would be nice to eek out the absolute maximum resolution out of 35mm in a convenient pacakge. An ISO 50 version and an ISO 3200 version of any one of the C41 films would be very welcome.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Now I'm looking for a nice 400 ISO film. Tried HP5+ and XP2 and didn't really care for both.

Hi,

Both are great films. Two of the greatest films available... With all respect I guess you should have liked them...

XP2 is very easy to shoot: at ISO250 metering, or at +1 using autoexposure and DX cameras reading ISO400. Not too bad if shot at 400. This film gives very fine grain and detail, and smooth tone: not the classic B&W tone.

HP5 can have different contrast and grain depending on the developer, the development time and the exposure.... If you want great B&W photography, here's my quick recipe:

1. Meter incident light, not reflected light... (Handheld meter)
2. Use HP5 or Tri-X (one of them only) for at least one year... (Buy 100 rolls to start with, and don't use any other B&W film until you feel you master it)
3. You will decide the contrast of your negatives, and it won't be decided by the available light... There are 2 stories... When there's direct sun, there are shadows, so the contrast is high because on your scenes you'll have zones under strong light and zones in the shadows, and the difference between both is huge... So in those direct sun, high contrast shots, you need to develop film for a short time to avoid that too high contrast. And the second story: when there's soft light, your scenes have soft contrast, so you need to develop those negatives for a longer time to give them a bump in contrast. As a starting point, for direct sun/short development, expose film at +1 (ISO200 for ISO400 film) and for non direct sun/long development, expose film at -1 (ISO800 for ISO400 film)... It's you who must find the development times that work well for you and for your gear...
4. The most important tip: don't mix sun scenes and overcast scenes on the same roll, because you wont see clearly what you're getting with your development. (A good negative should show good contrast: not too soft and not too high: the whites on the real scenes, must be dark gray on the negative, not black... If they're black your development time is too long... So, when you develop a sun roll for a short time, the general look of those negatives should be the same look of an overcast roll developed for a longer time... Both from transparent to dark gray... Write down all your data, and consider both light situations two different worlds: dedicate lots of days to practice sun exposure/short development, and lots of DIFFERENT days AND DIFFERENT ROLLS to practice overcast exposure/long development).

That's how it's done where I cursed my career. On the first three years we were allowed to shoot B&W only, and HP5 only!

So, it's this simple: more exposure and less development for sun, and less exposure and more development for overcast or shadows.

There are no better films than HP5 or Tri-X. But there's a lot of work to do with them before getting the most out of them...


Cheers,

Juan

 

[tstermitz]

I want to thank Juan V for his posts. They are always informative, educational and generous.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I want to thank Juan V for his posts. They are always informative, educational and generous.

Hey, that's sweet!

We're all here to talk and have fun and learn!

I keep coming to RFF because I keep learning a lot! Thanks RFF people!


Cheers,

Juan

 

[efix]

Thanks guys for all your great info! The only downside right now is that I don't have the time nor the means (i.e. facilities) to develop myself. So if TMAX needs TMAX developer to get the most out of it, it's probably not wise to send it to a lab? I had HP5+ developed at a lab and it turned out fine, though. I think I shall try Tri-X and BW400CN, and compare those with the results I got from XP2 and HP5+.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Thanks guys for all your great info! The only downside right now is that I don't have the time nor the means (i.e. facilities) to develop myself. So if TMAX needs TMAX developer to get the most out of it, it's probably not wise to send it to a lab? I had HP5+ developed at a lab and it turned out fine, though. I think I shall try Tri-X and BW400CN, and compare those with the results I got from XP2 and HP5+.

Tmax works fine in D76 1+1. Tmax Developer was designed to push Tmax 400 and Tmax 3200. If that's what you're doing, Tmax Developer is the best. For normal work with Tmax 400, my opinion is either Tmax Developer or D-76 are good. No lab I have ever tried,at any price, anywhere, does good black and white negative developing. Ever. If you cannot do it yourself (which is easy and CHEAP and will give better quality than any lab once you get some practice), then shoot the C-41 stuff.

T400 film, C-41 process

Tmax 400 in D-76 1+1

Tmax 400 in Tmax Developer diluted 1+7 (not the standard 1+4 dilution)

 

[efix]

No lab I have ever tried,at any price, anywhere, does good black and white negative developing. Ever.

Wow, Chris, you're scaring me 😱
Any idea to why that is? Automated processing?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Wow, Chris, you're scaring me 😱
Any idea to why that is? Automated processing?

Black and white films each require a different developing time, unlike color neg (c-41) films that all use the same chemicals and same developing times. Most labs only use one developer. Usually Xtol, D-76, or Tmax RS. No matter what chemicals the lab uses, each film needs a different time, and the times can vary a lot from one film type to another. My experience is they use automated processing at a single time for everything. Even ones who do use the right times often mistreat film, returning scratched or fingerprinted film. Just lazy stupid carelessness, and in the US labs all have the attitude that "labs never make mistakes", so if they screw up, they'll try to blame you, your camera, the stars, God, the Devil, President Obama, President Bush, global warming, etc. Anything but them taking responsibility.

 

[efix]

Black and white films each require a different developing time, unlike color neg (c-41) films that all use the same chemicals and same developing times. Most labs only use one developer. Usually Xtol, D-76, or Tmax RS. No matter what chemicals the lab uses, each film needs a different time, and the times can vary a lot from one film type to another. My experience is they use automated processing at a single time for everything. Even ones who do use the right times often mistreat film, returning scratched or fingerprinted film. Just lazy stupid carelessness, and in the US labs all have the attitude that "labs never make mistakes", so if they screw up, they'll try to blame you, your camera, the stars, God, the Devil, President Obama, President Bush, global warming, etc. Anything but them taking responsibility.

Chris, thanks for the heads up. Although with CEWE in Germany I've had only very positive experiences so far. But I shall inquire with them inhowfar they are able (or not) to deviate from their standard processing upon request.

 

[thegman]

Wow, Chris, you're scaring me 😱
Any idea to why that is? Automated processing?

Chris probably has much higher standards than I do (I'm happy if my shots come out at all), but I've had some luck with the pro labs in the UK for B&W processing, namely:

Ilford Lab, Peak Processing, The Darkroom, Genie Imaging.

I've had some disasters too with the cheap high street labs who claim they do B&W, but I think they just brew up some strong coffee and leave the roll in that overnight.

Like I say, Chris (and maybe you) will have higher standards than I do, but there are some pro labs out there who do a nice job on B&W, at least by my eye.

 

[haempe]

large labs often run their b/w development with higher temperature than is good. that shortens the throughput time. It also increases contrast and blocks the highlights already with slight over-exposure. b/w development in the large labs should be avoided. either make themselves or by specialized labs.
(I've worked some time in a large lab)

 

[efix]

I've had some disasters too with the cheap high street labs who claim they do B&W, but I think they just brew up some strong coffee and leave the roll in that overnight.

LOL They probably read about the "Caffenol" menthod on the internet and decided to give it a try ... 😉