Tri-X 400 vs Tmax 400

[jja]

Is “a Mexican speaker” something commonly said in the States, or is it a new invention of yours? It sounds so funny! I never heard it before! I've never been to México, but if one day I do, I'll hear the Mexican language!

I think I know where John's coming from, given that I am Mexican! "Mexican Spanish" is the most modern and correct form of Spanish. Seriously, I just got back from Barcelona--beautiful city!--and was pleasantly surprised by how well I got along with the diversity of language forms.--otro Juan

 

[charjohncarter]

Hi John. Two girls has never been my style, and never will... Any woman is a whole universe, complete and enough and making sense to any man with open eyes... I was never attracted to those stories... Even one love is too much sometimes...

Is “a Mexican speaker” something commonly said in the States, or is it a new invention of yours? It sounds so funny! I never heard it before! I've never been to México, but if one day I do, I'll hear the Mexican language! The names for our Spanish language are two: Español and Castellano... In Spain it's called Castellano (From the land of Castilla, as other lands or “countries” inside Spain have other languages, like Catalán in this land named Catalunya... There are maybe 6 or 7 languages inside this small country) and outside Spain, Spanish is called Español.

Catalán is not the only language spoken in Barcelona, and it isn't even the most used one: it's Spanish the most used by everyone. Like all other countries inside Spain with old, own languages, Catalunya's government promotes (Madrid against it) the use of Catalán trying to keep it alive, but as you can imagine, it's hard for a language spoken by few people to survive in the modern world... Almost every person living or born in Barcelona can speak, read and write in castellano (Spanish): one of the most important reasons for that is the Spanish constitution, where of course the main language for the whole country must be Spanish... Apart, historically catalán was forbidden for decades by the Spanish government even inside Catalunya!... And the other huge reason is who lives here: half the people living here are from all around the world, speaking English and Spanish mainly... My (father's) last name DeValdenebro is from the land called País Vasco (where Bilbao is) next to France by the northern sea (Here we're next to France by the southern sea...) I've tried to find my lastname in the past, and the furthest point I've found written registry of it is a list from the 1400's, with a guy Valdenebro giving money then (lots of people did it) to the Queen of Spain so she could help Columbus with the money for his trips for discovering America. If you ever want to read a really strange language, get some “Euskara” from my father's family land, País Vasco... A mysterious, different language nobody knows for sure where it came from...

Catalán is an easy language... At least to me and to all latin-languages speakers... I was born in Colombia (like my mother) -I mean I grew up with Spanish language- and came to study my carreer in photography in Spain (it doesn't exist in Colombia) and I've lived here nearly 20 years ago, inside Barcelona always, so I speak Catalán, though I never need it here in Barcelona... Indeed I never use it anywhere... Catalán is very Spanish-like, sharing many words, and most structures, and is close to Italian and French... Window: fenetre (French), fenestra (Italian), finestra (Catalán)... And it has lots of Latin too... The reason is Cataluña was the Caesar's backyard during summer: the biggest and most important city in the Roman empire (after Rome) when that empire was half the known world, was Tarragona (here, next to Barcelona) and Caesars came here every summer to enjoy the best beaches, the very appreciated rose wine (yes, as fine as the best red wines), and to fall in love with the very pleasant Spanish women... And men... Then they went down a bit more inside Iberia (old name for Spain) until reaching Cádiz (the old and famous Ghades) that almost touches Africa, a land for exotic music, crazyness, drugs and depravation: the same things that were common daily to Rome's people and authorities in Rome, but now far away from home, and with a lot of heat and new black and Arabic young flesh around...

Wow, now I remember this is a photography forum... To end it, 100% people speak Spanish in Barcelona, and half of it (in general those not born in Barcelona or Spain) speak English... And half of us Catalán too... But Catalán is important especially to people who don't speak other languages... No one needs Catalán to visit or live in Barcelona... Next time you come, I'll teach you some Mexican...

Cheers,
Juan

Juan, what stumbling Spanish I know; I learned in Mexican neighborhoods in CA, and some in Panama'. Anyway, everyone in Barcelona was great to me, you live in a beautiful city:

 

[Ken Smith]

Tmax400 vs Neopan 400

Tmax400 vs Neopan 400

Anyone care to comment on how TMax 400 stacks up against Neopan 400 in 120 format. I have a couple of folders I was wanting to use Neo 400 in and of course that format offering is history.

Ken

 

[jja]

As a way to get back on topic, here is a photo of La Sagrada Familia taken w/ T-Max 400, developed in D-76:

 

[Pirate]

You guys are a riot. I love the knowledge and diversity here.

Got the rest of the roll scanned. Here's some more shots from the 2TMY roll.

It's very obvious now from some of these pics that my focus is off, no more question about it. I pulled the viewfinder screen from my Nikon F4 and will use that tomorrow on the back of the Leica on the film rails to recalibrate the lens to the Rangefinder.

 

[Pirate]

My focus seems to be just past the point I was focused on.

Meanwhile, I think I like the Tmax over the Tri-X, but I still have both so I'll shoot them both up and we'll see. Maybe I'll throw some in the M4 with the Voigtlander F/1.1 to get a better (newer lens) feel for them.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Another big difference is TMY2 is closer to box speed than Tri-X...

Tri-X is beautiful and clean when it receives enough light. For soft light I rate Tri-X at 200, and TMY2 at 400. I don't like the common look of Tri-X at 400, underexposed showing lots of dark grays too close to black...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

That does make sense about the numbers. I think the next number down is 4800 so I'll give that a shot.

It still won't matter. The Epson flatbed lens (or something else in the system) simply doesn't resolve anything above about 2000 dpi, maybe a little above. If you compare a Nikon (any recent model) and Epson, both scanning at 4000, the Nikon will be much sharper. What you're doing at 4800 or 9600 is simply dividing up the scan into more pixels, but the image doesn't get any sharper. It just means you can enlarge it without obvious pixelation. I've done the prints to prove it. You can, however, force the Epson scan to be reasonably sharp, but at the expense of grain and other noise.

 

[arpy]

Tri-X == grainy. T-Max == not so grainy. T-Max also has more latitude than Tri-X and is somewhat sharper. I like both.

To all: could we say this about HP5 vs Delta as well? I remember I was told something like that about Ilford. I mean just substitute Tri-X for HP5 and T-Max for Delta - does the truth value remain?

 

[SimonSawSunlight]

To all: could we say this about HP5 vs Delta as well? I remember I was told something like that about Ilford. I mean just substitute Tri-X for HP5 and T-Max for Delta - does the truth value remain?

mmmmmh no.

 

[Pirate]

Well my M3 is on the way to Youxin to be matched to that lens since I could not get it myself. When it comes back, I'll be able to give the Tmax more of a workout, and I'm getting better with this new developer so things should be fun.

Also, I'm getting started with Caffenol so it will be interesting to see the difference in the two developers with these films.

 

[Mark1960]

]

It is hard to see subtleties on the Internet, but Tmax400 (to me): a longer tone range and of course almost zero grain. Even in 35 and a little Rodinal.

I love the TriX image you posted, absolutely gorgeous and it's that sort of image I aspire to. As someone who has recently returned to film from digital, and prior to that only using a 35mm camera on high days and holidays, I've found this thread fascinating. So far only used HP5 and FP4 developed in Rodinal. Both of which I liked, especially the HP5, which I managed to darkroom print quite successfully. That's the newbie level of success I hasten to add and I did forget all about my filters. I'm definitely going to try both TriX and TMax. Someone said it's a matter of taste, which is true of all photography and editing, and I think TriX suits my taste.

 

[pepeguitarra]

TriX vs. Tmax

TriX vs. Tmax

For educational purposes, I am citing some small paragraphs of the book The Darkroom Cookbook by Steve Anchell (page 38):

" In the 1950s, Kodak introduced TriX film..................etc..........


In the 1980s, Kodak introduced T-Max tabular grain films. These films were based on "growing" flat silver halide crystals with the flat surface of each crystal facing the surface of the film to more efficiently collect light. In order to further increase the sensitivity of the flat-crystal to light, COLOR DYE technology developed through years of research on color negative and transparency film, was added. This allowed Kodak to use less silver. The result was a line of films that Kodak was able to make for less money and labelled as "modern" allowing them to be sold a higher price.

At first, photographers, myself included, anxious to be in the forefront of new and better film technology fell for he marketing hype. Kodak executives watched closely how as the sale of TriX dropped precipitously and the sale of T-Max 400 soared. When sales of Tri-X reached a predetermined baseline, Kodak planned to discontinue it altogether. Unfortunately for Kodak, in a very short time photographers worldwide realized that T-Max was inferior to TriX. The reason is that the thin, flat grains of silver literally do not have the depth of rounded pebble shape grains which enable them to record microscopic variations in contrast. In other words, the flatter the grain the less capable it is of recording micro-contrast. Almost overnight, the sales figures reversed, and T-Max 400 nearly fell off the sales charts. Kodak's response was to increase the advertising budget for T-Max.

But the story does not end here. Excited with the increased profit that color dye-sensitized films could bring if only photographers would cooperate, Kodak re-engineered all of their films, including TriX, reducing the silver content and replacing it with increase color-dye sensitizers like T-Max 400. TriX is now a semi-flat grain film with color-dye sensitizers.

The end result is that while TriX remains a better film than T-Max, it has lost the grainy, gutsy TriX look so prized by photographers. It now has a homogeneous appearance with no distinct characteristics other than being a fast film with "super-fine grain.""

 

[pepeguitarra]

TriX in HC-110h + a little Rodinal:

Tmax400 (new) HC-110h + a little Rodinal:

It is hard to see subtleties on the Internet, but Tmax400 (to me): a longer tone range and of course almost zero grain. Even in 35 and a little Rodinal.

John:
Can you tell us how is that little Rodinal applied? How much and when? Thanks, Pepe

 

[SaveKodak]

Don't over complicated things here:

Tri-X: Traditional grain, less detail except in 120+

TMAX: Very fine grain, lots of detail in any format.

When properly handled either is capable of breathtaking tonality. If you want a classic look, Tri-X, if you want a modern look, TMAX.

 

[x-ray]

For educational purposes, I am citing some small paragraphs of the book The Darkroom Cookbook by Steve Anchell (page 38):

" In the 1950s, Kodak introduced TriX film..................etc..........



In the 1980s, Kodak introduced T-Max tabular grain films. These films were based on "growing" flat silver halide crystals with the flat surface of each crystal facing the surface of the film to more efficiently collect light. In order to further increase the sensitivity of the flat-crystal to light, COLOR DYE technology developed through years of research on color negative and transparency film, was added. This allowed Kodak to use less silver. The result was a line of films that Kodak was able to make for less money and labelled as "modern" allowing them to be sold a higher price.

At first, photographers, myself included, anxious to be in the forefront of new and better film technology fell for he marketing hype. Kodak executives watched closely how as the sale of TriX dropped precipitously and the sale of T-Max 400 soared. When sales of Tri-X reached a predetermined baseline, Kodak planned to discontinue it altogether. Unfortunately for Kodak, in a very short time photographers worldwide realized that T-Max was inferior to TriX. The reason is that the thin, flat grains of silver literally do not have the depth of rounded pebble shape grains which enable them to record microscopic variations in contrast. In other words, the flatter the grain the less capable it is of recording micro-contrast. Almost overnight, the sales figures reversed, and T-Max 400 nearly fell off the sales charts. Kodak's response was to increase the advertising budget for T-Max.

But the story does not end here. Excited with the increased profit that color dye-sensitized films could bring if only photographers would cooperate, Kodak re-engineered all of their films, including TriX, reducing the silver content and replacing it with increase color-dye sensitizers like T-Max 400. TriX is now a semi-flat grain film with color-dye sensitizers.

The end result is that while TriX remains a better film than T-Max, it has lost the grainy, gutsy TriX look so prized by photographers. It now has a homogeneous appearance with no distinct characteristics other than being a fast film with "super-fine grain."

I started my career in the 60's working my way through college as a photo journalist and shot thousands of feet of classic TX. In the early 70's I shifted my career to commercial photography. In those days and until the millennium Kodak and most photo supply producers had field reps. My Kodak rep got to know me and my work and got me into field testing new films prior to introduction. Among those films were Kodachrome 200 and both Tmax 100 and 400. Keep in mind these were small batch emulsions and sent to those of us testing in 120 format with unmarked black backing paper and no name. All we knew was the ISO and recommended starting points with various developers. I received about 60 rolls at a time and was to shoot it along with my normal film on assignments after determining a correct developer and time combination. I was to write up a report and include negatives and prints and submit recommended changes to Kodak.

The initial 120 of both 100 & 400 were coated on a super thick rigid base that was quite difficult to transport through my Rollei SL66's. I and folks testing in Hasselblads both had transport problems resulting in damaged gears in the back. Other groups shooting 35mm had issues with their motor drives. As a result Kodak thinned the base 50%. Still the base was so thick it continued to caused transport problems in my SL66's and in Hasselblads. Kodak however settled on this thick base for the moment.

There were many issues with the early Tmax. In both 100 & 400 if you exposed for adequate shadow detail the highlights blocked. Reducing development resulted in muddy looking negs with mushy low contrast shadowed. Kodak made changes and sent more "improved" test film for evaluation until they felt it was ready for release.

Sadly when it was introduced to the market it was still on a very thick base that trashed many film backs. Also it took them years of improvements to finally get the shadows crisp and full without blowing the highlights or turning the image to mud. The Tmax of today doesn't even resemble the early product and is a superb material. IMO it's one of the best modern films on the market. For people that don't like grain that want super sharp images with a beautiful full rendering it's the best. It's a superior commercial film and landscape film. I even use it from time to time for documentary work.

Tri-x on the other hand became a totally different film in 2006 when it was reformulated. As mentioned TX was my standard PJ film. I shot many thousands of rolls and knew it inside out. Recently I've been darkroom printing some of my old negs for exhibition. printing from these negs makes me sad to see what Kodak has done to TX. Other than name the new TX isn't even close to the film of the 60's up to 2006. I have to rate the new TX at 250 and it no longer works well with my favorite developer that I used until the reformulation.

I continue to give it a try from time to time hoping Kodak came to its senses but unfortunately they have not. I also continue to search for a substitute settling on HP5 for now. HP5 is a beautiful film but it lacks the tonality and smoothness of original TX. For the moment though it'll have to do.

 

[charjohncarter]

Oh, boy...

Let's simply say there are considerable differences between them. What chemistry do you prefer to use?

Even without different chemistry there is 'considerable differences.' And to Pepeguitarra, I use a little Rodinal to pop the highlights (and maybe a little high midtones). I can do that with PS but when I look at the negative I just feel better.

 

[sepiareverb]

Thanks for the replies Don and pepeguitarra. I haven't shot Tri-X since the mid or late 90s, and have long wondered why everything I see now looks "wrong", now I get it.

 

[x-ray]

Thanks for the replies Don and pepeguitarra. I haven't shot Tri-X since the mid or late 90s, and have long wondered why everything I see now looks "wrong", now I get it.

Think there are a couple of reasons TX looks different. One it's a totally different emulsion and two rather than wet printing as it was designed for its being scanned. Unless a custom profile is created for the scanner tonal distribution will be different than a wet print. Also scanning yields an image that's had no dodging or burning. IMO dodging and burning is key to a fine print. Of the hundeds of thousands of negs I've exposed very few ever yielded its best print without dodging and burning.

 

[Rob-F]

When TMax first came out, I'm sure I must have been at the head of the line to buy some. But I found that it lacked midrange contrast. I would increase development to try to get some contrast--and wind up with blocked highlights.

So.

The Kodak ads for TMAx always showed subjects that had bright highlights and dark shadows--with detail at both ends.

Agree or disagree: To get that kind of a tonal range, it has to be compressed to fit within the toe and shoulder. So the curve through the midrange is flatter: ergo, diminished midrange contrast. Try and steepen it, and you got blocked highlights.

So. I gave up on TMax. Today, I use Delta instead. When I'm not shooting Tri-X, or using up a bit of my Plus-X stash.

When is Plus-X coming back?