Tri-X 400 vs Tmax 400

[Pirate]

I just souped up a roll of Tri-X shot a few weeks ago and it looks beautiful. As those who have read some of my posts may remember, I love the 25 ISO films, but after seeing this roll of Tri-X, it may be a contender to my heart.

Long story short, I found an old shop with lots of Tmax 400, so I bought a few rolls. Is there much difference in Tmax and Tri-X?

What's your preference/story/thoughts/suggestions/et al ??

 

[wlewisiii]

Oh, boy...

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

 

[Pirate]

I'll be using my Rollei developers. I have the High Speed, Low Speed, and Low Contrast developers.

 

[jja]

I am not familiar w/ the Rollei developers, and my comments apply to D-76 and Xtol.... TMax 400 has higher contrast and has a lot less grain than Tri-X. Shooting w/ TMax 400 is a lot like shooting w/ a 100 speed film in terms of grain. If you are shooting the new TMax 400 (TMY-2), you can shoot it at 800 and develop normally, so it's a versatile film in changing light conditions.

 

[helen.HH]

From my Perspective:
TriX can have that Wonderful sense of Delicate Grain to Extreme Grain...Classic Cooool Attitude...all i love of1960,70's photos

Tmax silky Smoooth.....Quite Lush...Wonderful Detail

Both Superbly RICH in Inky BLACKS
Mixed with Rodinal The PURRfect Cocktail...

These are the only two Films I use since neopan 1600 is no more

Cheers- H

 

[Pirate]

Thanks, I'll be sure to post the ones I just souped in the Rollei High Speed so we can see the differences.

I've got the M3 loaded with a roll of the Tmax, so that will be next!

 

[sepiareverb]

I'd wait to see some prints before gettin' hitched.

 

[benlees]

I like both but seeing as TriX is a buck cheaper per roll I usually get a brick of it over the Tmax. TriX seems to have more personality; flexibility as it were. A wee bit of grain to make things interesting. Tmax is beautifully clean, very little grain. This can be nice also like if need a lot of detail.

 

[Pablito]

matter of taste. I like Tri-X and HP5+ even more so. I intensely disliked the older TMAX400 so I have had no incentive to try the new version, though many say it is much improved. Taste.

 

[bwcolor]

I like Tri-X in MF and TMY-2 in 35mm. Develop both in dilute Xtol, or TMax Developer.

 

[Tim Gray]

I've had good results from both. I find Tri-X grainier and not as sharp. It has a nice look though. TMY-2 is less sensitive to blue which is convenient.

This was in XTOL.

 

[Pirate]

Here's are some shots from the Tri-X developed in Rollei High Speed developer:

 

[charjohncarter]

Yes, there is a lot of difference. I use both and I enjoy both. Maybe like having two girlfriends at the same time.

 

[semilog]

matter of taste. I like Tri-X and HP5+ even more so. I intensely disliked the older TMAX400 so I have had no incentive to try the new version, though many say it is much improved. Taste.

Agree about HP5, and I never liked the old TMY.

BUT... I would be happy to shoot 2TMY and develop it in XTOL 1:1 for the rest of my life. It's that good.

I think my changing opinion is a function of two things. (1) The film is better; (2) the technician is considerably more exacting. 😛

 

[Pirate]

Here's some more scans from the Tri-X 400 souped in Rollei High Speed developer:

All these were shot with an M3 and Voigtlander 50mm F/1.1

 

[bigeye]

How are you scanning these?

 

[Mablo]

Looks like underexposed to me (please note, I'm not watching these through my usual home screen so I can be wrong..). Shoot the next roll @200 and use the same dev time. Your negs should be much nicer.

 

[Tim Gray]

Looks like underexposed to me (please note, I'm not watching these through my usual home screen so I can be wrong..). Shoot the next roll @200 and use the same dev time. Your negs should be much nicer.

I agree. Either you are underexposing, or that developer really doesn't do Tri-X justice in the shadows and you might be better off with something that gives you more speed, like XTOL.

 

[Pirate]

About all the shots were done without a meter, just me using sunny sixteen so I'm not surprised they were a little underexposed. The night shots outside from the top of the parking garage were done as slow as I knew I could hold the camera with the aperture wide open - F/1.1 @ 1/15s.

I'm scanning with a CanoScan 8800F at 9600 dpi and photoshopping a little dust out of them, but that's all.

More shots:

 

[mtargz]

Tri-X looks quite nasty and unpleasant in underexposed/developed shadows - notice the wooden stand thingy in the foyer in the second picture.

I love Tri-X, souped in Rodinal - but beware of underexposing, and beware of underdeveloping if pushing. I've had EI800 rolls that were squeaky-clean and super-detailed in the shadows when I did my homework and pushed correcly, and EI320 rolls with that sort of muddy, life-less junk that also drives scanners insane...