Tri-X 400TX Equivalents

[teddy]

Considering you initially said that you were attracted to TRI-X for the charming grain, then XTOL would be the one developer that I would avoid with this film.

As others have mentioned, the formula of TRI-X has changed over the years so it no longer produces that mongrel grain that it was famous for when dunked in D76 1:1. If you want to reproduce that look of the original TRI-X then Rodinal would be the go to developer. However, you should expose it at EI:250 or 320 as you will struggle to get an EI:400 with Rodinal. If you are also using a medium yellow filter, then you will have to adjust your exposure again and open a stop to allow for the filter.

So, for hand held street, perhaps TRI-X and Rodinal would give you too low a shutter speed for images on the 'go' - of course depending on your technique.

So, I would recommend Ilford HP5 Plus with D76 1:1. You will be able to expose at EI:400 and will produce images that are similar to the original TRI-X in D76 1:1.

Yep, well I do prefer images with grain, and more tonality rather than CLEAN and high contrast. But I can appreciate this effect as some of you have shown and it has it's place. So in case of what you are saying, exposing at 250 with a yellow filter will give me say, more shadow detail than what box speed would?

 

[teddy]

I have gotten great photographic results from Tri-X in D-76 1+1 or Rodinal 1+50; Tmax 400 in D-76 1+1, Tmax Developer, and PMK Pyro; and Ilford HP5 in PMK Pyro. All of these combinations are different in grain, speed, and tonality, but all will gove great results if you take the time to master the film you choose. The only one made today that I have not really liked was Fomapan 400; it is too grainy and the tonality is not as good as the Kodak and Ilford films.

If you like Tri-X, keep using it. Kodak still makes it and buying it will keep it in production. As some others have said, it looks best in D-76 1+1. If you like grain and a harsher tonal rendering, try Rodinal 1+50. Tmax Developer gives good results if you want a liquid developer with similar grain to D-76, but I like the tonality a little better with D-76

Yes, I fell in love with Tri-X on the first try. I will use it a lot more, but I have to get some D-76.

Have you tried using D 76 at 1:100 semi stand by any chance? Would appreciate to see an example if you have any.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[teddy]

This one is an image from the local steam museum, dev in Tmax

A fine image, and the shadows seem smooth with TMAX, I can't put my finger on it. It looks like this image was taken 80 years ago. It's nice.

I can see how Tri-X is unique, it has grabbed me. I need to fine tune my development to suit my image style.

 

[teddy]

And for the record, my development times for my images are Rodinal 1:100, 60 mins Semi Stand, 22C*. 20 agitations, then 5 every 15 mins. Thanks for your help everyone.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Yes, I fell in love with Tri-X on the first try. I will use it a lot more, but I have to get some D-76.

Have you tried using D 76 at 1:100 semi stand by any chance? Would appreciate to see an example if you have any.

Thanks for sharing.

I never use stand development or any other reduced agitation scheme. My experiences trying it were that results were inconsistant; with frequent streaks and mottling because of inadequate agitation. Also I have never liked the tonal rendering using Rodinal at any dilution higher than 1+50...it flattens the highlights too much for my taste.

There really is no magic bullet, no special trick, no gimmick that will make your photos special. If you want the best results, a standard developer with normal dilution and normal agitation will give perfect results every time, consistently, once you have practiced enough.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . There really is no magic bullet, no special trick, no gimmick that will make your photos special. If you want the best results, a standard developer with normal dilution and normal agitation will give perfect results every time, consistently, once you have practiced enough.

Dear Chris,

You know that. I know that. The only people who don't know that are first, the tinfoil-helmet brigade who are sure that their combination, and their combination ONLY, gives good pictures, and second, those who are forever changing films and developers in the search for The Magic Bullet.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Dear Chris,

You know that. I know that. The only people who don't know that are first, the tinfoil-helmet brigade who are sure that their combination, and their combination ONLY, gives good pictures, and second, those who are forever changing films and developers in the search for The Magic Bullet.

Cheers,

R.

Yep! Now, I do like trying new things. There's nothing wrong with that, but I tend to stick to things that I have mastered for my everyday work. Sometimes I do find something I really like through experimenting. For the last several years, I have been working with PMK Pyro developer. It is not a magic bullet. I don't like the results I got with some films in PMK, and while the ones I really love in PMK give incredible tonality, I can get great results with those same films using D-76. I just like PMK a little more for some films (especially FP4 and HP5).

 

[Grahamb]

But for which one is right, the one's who are sure, or the one's who are looking.

One's who are sure they have the magic, and are right to think that way.

Or the one's that have passed the magic and never known they once had it

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

But for which one is right, the one's who are sure, or the one's who are looking.

One's who are sure they have the magic, and are right to think that way.

Or the one's that have passed the magic and never known they once had it

There is no magic. Anyone who tells you other wise is either a con-artist out to cheat you, or a fool who doesn't know any better. Photography is a chemical process whose results are scientifically measurable. That is a basic, unquestionable fact. There are some who are pained by this, thinking it makes photography somehow less creative, so they lie and claim to have discovered some gimmick...magic...to make their work better than everyone else's. Like I said, con artist or fool.

 

[teddy]

Agreed, high dilution and stand development can give inconsistent results, because it has happened to me.

 

[Pablito]

Forgot to say, that I personally don't like TRI-X in XTOL, as it looks like digital black and white to me and the resulting images seem to lack and perceived depth as there is no prominent grain. In other words 'flat'. It is however a great developer to push with>

Yes , I agree with this. HP5+ looks even less like digital black and white, more like the OLD tri-x

 

[Tom A]

I have used TriX since 1957 - that is scary! First time I was given a DS M3 with a "seasoned" collapsible Summicron 50 and a paper bag with loose TriX cassettes by a grizzled veteran press photographer "Hey kid, this is some new fangled film from Kodak. They claim it is 200 asa. Can't be any good" It was good - and still is. If there ever was a truly universal film XXX has to be it. It can be pushed and pulled, it takes abuse, it can be developed in just about anything. It is easy to focus as you do have a visible grain on the easel. Currently I am using the Arista Premium 400 - which is a thinly disguised TriX. Kodak occasionally mucks around with the emulsion, everybody wails and wrings their hands in despair - but after a couple of month the noise subsides - and we keep dunking it in whatever soup we use. When in doubt - D76 1:1 for 10-11 minutes always works.

 

[Tom A]

I am a pack-rat when it comes to developers. Here and there in the darkroom there are cans of stuff like this - D76 - and even some Perceptol/ Microphen/Microdol etc. I have used some of these cans - 20-30 years old - and it works fine. This is just my emergency stash.
Nikon F, Micro Nikkor 55mm f3.5, TriX (of course), D76 1:1 10 minutes.

 

[zuiko85]

I've always understood that the best equivalent to Tri-X was another 100 feet of Tri-X.

The trouble with us old timers is that we remember Trix, 100 ft. bulk for $9 (and a box of 10 Kodak Snap Caps were $1)

So it's hard to part with $70 + shipping for 100 ft. of Tri-X now.

 

[mfogiel]

D76 is "not supposed" to be used at homeopathic dilutions. Beyond 1+1 it starts losing the solvent action, the grain increases and the contrast flattens. I tried once a comparison between 1+1 and 1+3, and liked 1+1 more. This is the Kodak official instruction sheet:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.pdf
A good alternative to D76, with slightly more acutance, is HC 110 dil H with semi stand agitation (30 sec at start, then every 3 mins).

 

[Jaans]

Yep, well I do prefer images with grain, and more tonality rather than CLEAN and high contrast. But I can appreciate this effect as some of you have shown and it has it's place. So in case of what you are saying, exposing at 250 with a yellow filter will give me say, more shadow detail than what box speed would?

All things going to plan, in short yes. It all depends on the lighting conditions as to how I rate my film and what developer I choose. If there are strong highlights and deep shadows, then of course expose at 200 then cut development time to save frying the highlights. The increased exposure should garner some shadow detail.

If I want a gritty street look then I will use Rodinal, but if I want a cleaner look then I will use D76 1:1. Lately I have been using Rodinal 1:25 for 7 minutes at 19C on cloudy days and it seems to my eye that this is actually smoother than 1:50.

Probably the best advice I can give is read up on anything that Tom A, Roger or Chris have posted. Those guys really know their stuff>

 

[teddy]

I have used TriX since 1957 - that is scary! First time I was given a DS M3 with a "seasoned" collapsible Summicron 50 and a paper bag with loose TriX cassettes by a grizzled veteran press photographer "Hey kid, this is some new fangled film from Kodak. They claim it is 200 asa. Can't be any good" It was good - and still is. If there ever was a truly universal film XXX has to be it. It can be pushed and pulled, it takes abuse, it can be developed in just about anything. It is easy to focus as you do have a visible grain on the easel. Currently I am using the Arista Premium 400 - which is a thinly disguised TriX. Kodak occasionally mucks around with the emulsion, everybody wails and wrings their hands in despair - but after a couple of month the noise subsides - and we keep dunking it in whatever soup we use. When in doubt - D76 1:1 for 10-11 minutes always works.

Fantastic, thank you - this boosts my confidence and like I said to others in this post, I have to try D 76 1:1 10-11 mins because I use Rodinal mostly for everything.

 

[bcli]

I've always understood that the best equivalent to Tri-X was another 100 feet of Tri-X.

The trouble with us old timers is that we remember Trix, 100 ft. bulk for $9 (and a box of 10 Kodak Snap Caps were $1)

So it's hard to part with $70 + shipping for 100 ft. of Tri-X now.

+1 Wow, I thought only I was thinking this! Nowadays I'm just glad I can get film...

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

You lucky people; I can remember using my last foot of bulk FP3 and having to go over to that upstart FP4, and then FP4+.

Trouble is I still ask for FP3 in shops...

Regards, David

 

[Chris101]

Hi,

You lucky people; I can remember using my last foot of bulk FP3 and having to go over to that upstart FP4, and then FP4+.

Trouble is I still ask for FP3 in shops...

Regards, David

I'll bet you say "asa" too. 😉