Tri-X formulation

[mark-b]

A while back, I asked the forum if Tri-X is still the same formulation as the original. It seems that it's gone through changes over time.

Maybe Kodak could answer this, but why did they make changes? Were the modifications improvements, or cost-cutting, or is it the gradual reduction of silver towards more dyes in the final image on film?

 

[bmattock]

According to Kodak, it was done to make it faster:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20040212-03.shtml

Originally available in ASA daylight 200 and Tungsten 160-speed, the film was modified once, in 1960. It is now available in 320 and 400-speed and continues to use the same D-76 processing that it used in 1954.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Improvements in most cases. That's why it took a dozen years or more before they introduced it in roll-film and 35mm. Today's Tri-X is finer grained, sharper, less prone to reticulation... Also production advantages: faster coating, for example. It MAY (I don't know) go off faster under poor storage. But there are no dyes in the image.

Cheers,

R.

 

[rlouzan]

It´s my understanding that Tri-X and Kodachrome 64 films where slightly different in the US than in Europe (80s) - probably do to different consumer tastes.

 

[Svitantti]

There are two versions of Kodachrome - the "pro" version and the normal one (KR and KPR was it?).

I think in Europe all or most of the Kodachromes (at least recently) were sold with processing bags. They were also the KR version. In the US there were both versions and processing wasn't included. It is said the pro version was more magenta and the "amateur" version greenish so that it would last more without going bad.

I think Tri-x has changed a lot of times during the years. I dont know how much difference does it really make, but some say the Trix today doesnt have much to do with the original one...

 

[rlouzan]

Yes, European Kodachrome 64 (KR) was more Magenta. USA made Kodachrome 64(KR) tended to shift to green especially with exposures 1/30sec. and longer.

KR pro was more of a special order item in Europe.


Regards,
RLouzan

There are two versions of Kodachrome - the "pro" version and the normal one (KR and KPR was it?).

I think in Europe all or most of the Kodachromes (at least recently) were sold with processing bags. They were also the KR version. In the US there were both versions and processing wasn't included. It is said the pro version was more magenta and the "amateur" version greenish so that it would last more without going bad.

I think Tri-x has changed a lot of times during the years. I dont know how much difference does it really make, but some say the Trix today doesnt have much to do with the original one...

 

[rlouzan]

Probably all the above😉.

A while back, I asked the forum if Tri-X is still the same formulation as the original. It seems that it's gone through changes over time.

Maybe Kodak could answer this, but why did they make changes? Were the modifications improvements, or cost-cutting, or is it the gradual reduction of silver towards more dyes in the final image on film?

 

[Chris101]

Probably all the above😉.

A while back, I asked the forum if Tri-X is still the same formulation as the original. It seems that it's gone through changes over time.

Maybe Kodak could answer this, but why did they make changes? Were the modifications improvements, or cost-cutting, or is it the gradual reduction of silver towards more dyes in the final image on film?

As Roger said above, trix has no dyes to form the image. You are thinking of BW400CN film, where the latent image is silver, but then the final image is made of dye. This has the advantage of better scanability and using the C-41 process. It has the disadvantage of using the C-41 process.

 

[JRG]

Here are some pertinent threads from the PN archives:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=23&msg_id=001jDk

http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/002ZnW

And from the local archives:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-40382.html

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37050


(You mean need to scroll down a bit, in any of these)

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Tri-X was reformulated several years ago when Kodak built a new smaller facility o coat BW films more efficiently in the digital age when film isn't selling as fast as in the past. They actually had to reformulate all of their BW films, and some were simply discontinued to avoid the cost of doing this. At the time, Kodak said the reformulation was needed because of the new equipment that was designed and built for the plant.

Tri-X got less grainy, Tmax 400 and Tmax 100 got granier in my opinion. Tmax3200 stayed about the same. I switched to Tri-X from Tmax 400 after that because Tmax 400 's image quality suffered so badly. They finally redeemed themselves with the new Tmax 400 that is being made now, which is better that the original Tmax 400 and light-years better than the one they made after the initial reformulation.

 

[mark-b]

😀so it's just a rumour about dyes. i'm relieved! your are right, Chris101, that if it's the dyes in the final, it's technically a C41 process/film. sharper and finer grain is a good improvement, Roger. Thank you all for your thoughts and threads. keep it coming 🙂.

 

[colyn]

less prone to reticulation...
Cheers,

R.

I loved reticulation.

Develop at 125+ degrees then dunk the roll in ice water..

Those were the days.....🙂

 

[Pablito]

Tri-X was reformulated several years ago when Kodak built a new smaller facility o coat BW films more efficiently in the digital age when film isn't selling as fast as in the past. They actually had to reformulate all of their BW films, and some were simply discontinued to avoid the cost of doing this. At the time, Kodak said the reformulation was needed because of the new equipment that was designed and built for the plant.

Tri-X got less grainy, Tmax 400 and Tmax 100 got granier in my opinion. Tmax3200 stayed about the same. I switched to Tri-X from Tmax 400 after that because Tmax 400 's image quality suffered so badly. They finally redeemed themselves with the new Tmax 400 that is being made now, which is better that the original Tmax 400 and light-years better than the one they made after the initial reformulation.

This is correct. But it had different effects on different users. When Kodak made that change they ruined Tri-X for me. They made it less grainy, true, but it also lost contrast and speed. The negs exposed at ISO 400 looked thin, which may have been good for scanning but did not make the sort of wet prints I like. I changed to Ilford HP5+ which is much closer to the "old" Tri-X. I am much more happy with HP5+ than the "new" Tri-X.

 

[x-ray]

This is correct. But it had different effects on different users. When Kodak made that change they ruined Tri-X for me. They made it less grainy, true, but it also lost contrast and speed. The negs exposed at ISO 400 looked thin, which may have been good for scanning but did not make the sort of wet prints I like. I changed to Ilford HP5+ which is much closer to the "old" Tri-X. I am much more happy with HP5+ than the "new" Tri-X.

I agree that the new Tri-x is a sad excuse. Others disagree and love it but I used thousands of feet for may years and achieved some of the best negs in my career. Now I have to rate the new at 250 ISO and there's no personality to it. It's the oatmeal of film now. I to have gone to HP-5 and for a smooth look I shoot Neopan 400.

 

[mark-b]

This is correct. But it had different effects on different users. When Kodak made that change they ruined Tri-X for me. They made it less grainy, true, but it also lost contrast and speed. The negs exposed at ISO 400 looked thin, which may have been good for scanning but did not make the sort of wet prints I like. I changed to Ilford HP5+ which is much closer to the "old" Tri-X. I am much more happy with HP5+ than the "new" Tri-X.

So...if the new Tri-X looks thin, and it's obviously a changed film, then Kodak should have made changes to (for example only) D-76? What is the "standard" developer for the new Tri-X (?).

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

So...if the new Tri-X looks thin, and it's obviously a changed film, then Kodak should have made changes to (for example only) D-76? What is the "standard" developer for the new Tri-X (?).

I've been happy with D-76 1+1 for the current incarnation of Tri-X. I get a speed of 320 from it with good results, but I scan on a Nikon film scanner, I have not tried wet printing the new Tri-X.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Back in the 1950's ASA ratings ha a "safety factor" of about one stop. Tri-X was thus ASA 200, but it was common knowledge that you set your meter at 400. All the Kodak films have been "reformulated" several times over the years. Tri-X would have "NEW INPROVED" printd on the box along with a warning to check the leaflet for new processing times. Tri-X today is much finer grained than it was back in 1954 when it was fiirst introduced. These days nobody screws around with the old classic "fine grain developers" like FR X-33 or Microdol-X.

 

[Trius]

I agree that the new Tri-x is a sad excuse. Others disagree and love it but I used thousands of feet for may years and achieved some of the best negs in my career. Now I have to rate the new at 250 ISO and there's no personality to it. It's the oatmeal of film now. I to have gone to HP-5 and for a smooth look I shoot Neopan 400.

I've found nearly the opposite. Tri-X I shot 20+ years ago was only good if I shot it @ EI 250; my soup was HC-110. Now I can shoot at 320 or 400 and in Rodinal 1:100 it looks very good unless the scene is low contrast in which case I go with 1:50 or an XTol/Rodinal combination. Strange.

However, I am currently going to shoot a lot of TMY-2. I really like it.

Edit: actually, I used to shoot it at 200, not 250.

 

[Al Kaplan]

"The lousier your negatives are the better the printer you'll become" was the way they use to phrase it. That should be as applicable with scanned negatives and digital prints as it was with wet printing. To some extent what's fashionable in printing style dictates what kind of negative we seek. The current goal of a full tonal range print wasn't always the fashion of the day. H.C.B. liked prints that were light and, for want of a better term, silvery. Gene Smith printed dark and then did a lot of work on the still wet print with a silver bleach, potassium ferracyanide to lighten areas and get crisp whites. In the 1960's Tri-X and HP-3 was often pushed a stop or two, increasing contrast, then printed on a number 3 paper anyway. A lot of photographers' work of that vintage would be considered too contrasty today.

We need to remember, though, that while we can view high quality gelatin silver prints of those photographs today back then you would have seen them printed on magazine pages or in the newspaper, and even Life Magazine had some pretty poor printing by today's standards. Subject matter and composition carried the pictures.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

 

[Roger Hicks]

This is correct. But it had different effects on different users. When Kodak made that change they ruined Tri-X for me. They made it less grainy, true, but it also lost contrast and speed. The negs exposed at ISO 400 looked thin, which may have been good for scanning but did not make the sort of wet prints I like. I changed to Ilford HP5+ which is much closer to the "old" Tri-X. I am much more happy with HP5+ than the "new" Tri-X.

A film can't 'lose contrast'. It may need more development to achieve a given contrast -- changes in development time are normal after reformulations -- but a given contrast is always achievable.

Underdevelopment could also account for what you see as loss of speed: everyone who has plotted the D/log E curves sees very similar speeds for the previous and current versions.

Manufacturers are resigned to losing devotees of old formulations whenever they make any changes, but they don't make them to save money: the R&D and coating machine setup cost too much. Sometimes they have to switch machines; sometimes environmental regulations force changes (the banning of cadmium did for Super-XX, for example); sometimes their films are so far behind the competition (grain, sharpness, whatever) that they have to revise them. So they gain customers too.

I always preferred HP5, but Frances uses Tri-X and prefers the new version to the old. And HP5 Plus annoyed devotees of HP5, and HP5 upset those who loved HP4. The reason XP2 Super wasn't called XP3 when it came out, years ago, was that the marketing people were afraid of frightening off XP2 users -- but it's a much better and very different film.

Cheers,

Roger