Tri-X 320 vs 400

[degruyl]

Is there a real difference here between these two Tri-Xs?

(feeling like an idiot because I have a box of 320 mixed in, at the moment)

 

[usagisakana]

Yes, aside from the sensitivity difference, they have different tonality, or so I recall.

 

[degruyl]

that was what I was getting from the data sheet. crud. I will just have to shoot through it.

I was hoping it was just repackaged with a more accurate ISO label.

 

[mfogiel]

Apparently TXP is the preferred film in MF and LF of many profesionals and artists. I have seen great photos developed in Edwal's FG7, Pyro, Acufine, Rodinal,etc. Giorgia Fiorio uses this film exclusively:
http://www.giorgiafiorio.org/

 

[sienarot]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79465

 

[degruyl]

Thanks all.

Now, looking at the D-76 Data sheet, I see four different Tri-Xs listed.

I am assuming that the current 400TX and 320TXP are as labeled, while the Tri-X Pan and Tri-X Pan Professional are the older emulsions (for whatever reason they changed them).

Is this correct?

(looking at the correct lines, I see the development times are different as well)

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Thanks all.

Now, looking at the D-76 Data sheet, I see four different Tri-Xs listed.

I am assuming that the current 400TX and 320TXP are as labeled, while the Tri-X Pan and Tri-X Pan Professional are the older emulsions (for whatever reason they changed them).

Is this correct?

(looking at the correct lines, I see the development times are different as well)

Yes that's right. They changed them when Kodak built a brand new film factory made for smaller volume production several yrs ago. This was done to allow efficient production of film to continue in the digital age when much less film is being sold. Because Kodak designed and had built brand new coating machines that worked differently than the old ones, the formulas of the emulsions had to be changed slightly, resulting in different developing times.

 

[Keith]

I've just started using some TX320 in MF and the first thing I noticed is it doesn't seem to quite as forgiving as 400. When the exposure is correct it's stunning but changes dramatically if a stop out either way. I definitely want to keep using it for MF though ... it's well worth the effort!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Different films. The 320 version (classic, MF) has a surface for retouching on negative. The "new" 400 can be pushed some more. Both have great tonal separation with clear highlights. Although close, developing times are a bit different too.