Tri X "On it's way out" - B&W Magazine Xmas 08 and Silverprint

I practically started photography on Tri-X. If there were to be only one B&W film available on the last legs of film use (probably year 2075 AD) I would prefer it'd be Tri-X. Hear that Kodak?
 
That is very heartening to hear all of these things. I must admit when I read the article I was raised and eyebrow of suspicion; it didn't seem likely that Kodak would do such a thing akin to loading a gun and firing it at both feet 😉

I'm recently new to 120 format with my Mamiya C330 which is fun using (I like mechanical cameras) but I haven't loaded up on any Tri X 120 yet which is rather odd as I practically live, breathe and eat the stuff in 35mm.

At some point I do want to get into pushing Tri X, I love Neopan 1600 but seeing some pushed Tri X shot up to 6400 I have been wowed by the contrast, the detail and general gorgeousness of the shots.

Thanks again and I didn't come here to stir up alarm, I was alarmed myself by the news I had read!
 
Good God, THey can't stop making Tri-x, I just boouht a whole poop load of the the stuff... I guess I'll have to buy another poop load of the stuff before kodak stops making it!!!!!!!
 
Tri-X will be the film that turns the lights off. We are a long way from it being discontinued. But Arista premium does raise an eyebrow... It's good for right now but i wonder what it means for the future.
 
If there ever was an international term used in photography, it has to be "Tri X rated @400 and run it in D76 1:1 for 10-11 min". Language barriers disappear and the lab-guy just nods sagely and does it!
I first started using it in 1957 - it was rated as a 200 asa film, but Kodak soon found out that "shooters" used it at every possible speed (and impossible ones too) - so they decided to call it 400 asa instead.
It is incredibly flexible - you can pull and push it to impossible speeds and you can develop it in virtually anything. There are other films that are better for some things, but Tri X always gets a decent negative. Maybe not a pretty negative - but you can get something off it. OK. it also has taught some of us how to print - and occasionally also taught us how to use Agfa #6 paper and Ilford multigrade filters with a 0 designation.
 
Tom A said:
If there ever was an international term used in photography, it has to be "Tri X rated @400 and run it in D76 1:1 for 10-11 min". Language barriers disappear and the lab-guy just nods sagely and does it!
I first started using it in 1957 - it was rated as a 200 asa film, but Kodak soon found out that "shooters" used it at every possible speed (and impossible ones too) - so they decided to call it 400 asa instead.
It is incredibly flexible - you can pull and push it to impossible speeds and you can develop it in virtually anything. There are other films that are better for some things, but Tri X always gets a decent negative. Maybe not a pretty negative - but you can get something off it. OK. it also has taught some of us how to print - and occasionally also taught us how to use Agfa #6 paper and Ilford multigrade filters with a 0 designation.
Click to expand...



So what you're saying is ... "It's the mother of all films!" 😛
 
Tom A said:
What I find a bit strange is that the Arista Premium 400 does look and behave like Tri X - sells at a heavy discount compared to "regular" Tri X.
Click to expand...

I'm about 3 rolls into an order of 20, and so far it looks identical to me. However, oddly, it FEELS thicker--like the emulsion has been applied to a different stock. I don't think it's quite the same stuff, ultimately, but it's more than close enough for me.
 
I'm occasionaly grateful that Ilford lets me burn down highlights with a #00 filter!

Tri-X is just a name. The film itself has gone through God only knows how many "New! Improved!" and "Check Data Sheet For New Development Times" generations since 1954. In the 1960's it seemed to be optimized for pushability. More recently the goal was finer grain, and now tonality. Today's Tri-X ain't your grandfather's Tri-X.

The American Standards Association (ASA) included a one stop "safety factor" in their film speed ratings so amateurs wouldn't get underexposed negatives. At least an overexposed negative had information on it. As more and more cameras became available with built in meters this became less of a problem. Pro photographers and serious amateurs already knew about the safety factor and rated their films accordingly. Kodak and the other manufacturers rerated their films upward to reflect the new reality. The films themselves didn't suddenly gain a stop.
 
Keith said:
So what you're saying is ... "It's the mother of all films!" 😛
Click to expand...

In a way it is. Even though it has gone through a lot of permutations, it still is rather "bullet proof". It has also stayed on under its original name since 1954 (1953 in Canada!). Once you have figured it out - you didn't worry too much about exposures and just kept shooting away. The base is less brittle today and the "surface" is a bit more scratch proof - but I treat it very much as I always have done and ,yes, occasionally one has to adjust development times to compensate for Kodak's manipulation of it - but usually no big departures.
One paper I used to work for in Sweden had a "coal" bin in the "dungeon" - the photgraphers hang out. In it were 1000's of rolls of Tri X and once you picked up your assignments - you just shoveled your pockets full. I could usually trust to find 15-20 rolls on the floor of the car too - just dust them off, shoot them and throw them in the D76!!
 
I've just started using Tri-x Tom and it is pretty impressive for sure. In the two or three rolls I've shot so far I don't think there's been a negative that didn't seem to scan really well ... it's incredibly forgiving and certainly justifies it's position at the top of the heap and I love it's classic look.

If Tri-x ever does vanish we'll know that film truly is dead!
 
Tri-X in sheet film goes back quite a few years before Tri-X in roll-film and 35mm: some time between 1938 and 1940, I think, but I can't be arsed to go and check. It's in my 40-41 Dataguide.

As Al says, it's changed a lot over the years.

Cheers,

R.
 
I find this rumor very difficult to believe. I shop at several stores around town and if there is any film that is selling in large quantities, it's Tri-X. It is the only film these days that sells out on a regular basis.

If I was to be worried about any film going away, it would be Ilford Delta 3200.

Recently the price here in the UK for D3200 went up to almost 6 GBP per roll of 135. That's a little over $10. My 'dealers' have told be that since the price increase, sales of the film have dropped considerably.

I used to shoot Tri-X and Delta3200, but had to drop Delta3200. I shoot between 20 - 40 rolls a month and would go bankrupt shooting Delta at 6 pounds a roll. Instead I switched over to TMAX P3200, which is selling for 2.50 GBP a roll.

What is rather odd is that here in the UK, Ilford films which are produced domestically, are often more expensive than the imported competition. I know that D3200 is a complex film (5 layers?), but can it really be more than twice as expensive to produce as TMAX P3200?

TMAX P3200 is pretty good at 1600 asa. Delta is nicer. I really liked the lower contrast, but for twice the price it's not that much nicer. But TMAX P3200 is 2.5 times faster (400 vs 1000 asa) than Tri-X and in the end that's all that counts.
 
Last edited:
Given the way that the UK Black & White Photography magazine has gone since their founding editor left, I'm surprised they even know what Tri-X is!
 
varjag said:
According to Kodak datasheet and perforation codes, 35mm in rolls and in bulk are the same film.
Click to expand...

I don't know about nowadays but about 30 years ago the bulk Tri-x was different than the roll version. The bulk had a higher film base + fog densitometer reading.
 
Last edited:
varjag said:
According to Kodak datasheet and perforation codes, 35mm in rolls and in bulk are the same film.
Click to expand...

While I cannot yet confirm the difference personally, I just picked up bulk roll of Tri-X today and will be shooting it during 'Keith's One Camera/One Lens Challenge' over the next few weeks. So we will see...

Harry Lime said:
TMAX P3200 is pretty good at 1600 asa. Delta is nicer. I really liked the lower contrast, but for twice the price it's not that much nicer. But TMAX P3200 is 2.5 times faster (400 vs 1000 asa) than Tri-X and in the end that's all that counts.
Click to expand...

Harry,

I used to shoot lots of TMax 3200, but now prefer to shoot Tri-X rated at 3200 and 6400 which I stand develop in Rodinal 1:100. Better tones, contrast control and finer grain than P3200 or D3200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom