Tri-X or fine grain films?

[naren]

I have been shooting for over 20 years, and first processed and printed b&w 17 years ago. My greatest body of work is color nature photography, but I've since shot lots of different subject matter, with different tools, etc.

I've started a b&w 35mm project which is inspired by a number of things, but for the sake of simplicity let's just say "street photography" and a book I read on b&w toning by Tim Rudman. I'm excited to experiment with toners and find a look, or perhaps it can be different looks if they work together for this project. So far I've just done a good bit of shooting and processing with Kodak Tri-X. When I shot b&w over the years though, my inclination was always to go with the fine grain options, and I liked medium format look. Years back I tried tri-x and found that although there was plenty of imagery with a grainy look out there that I liked, my stuff just seemed to look crappy. I don't know if was the subject matter or what... but I quickly went back to delta100. I wouldn't go so far as to say I find myself in the same quandary just yet... but I am afraid of that or that I should really be shooting another film. Time being the enemy, I thought I would post this and see if I might get some helpful advice.

My subjects are often younger women, fashionably dressed, lots of texture in the shots... things that when I really think about it I feel would do better with a fine grain smooth look. By the way I am also planning on hanging 11x14 or __x14 size prints. A lot of stuff is shot in dimly lit venues with on camera direct flash, so it's quite contrasty. I think mainly it's the detail and texture in subjects, and a soft smooth face that make me feel like I'm going wrong here. A couple things that made me just go with tri-x- 1. Digital has it when it comes to sharp, smooth images and although photags can maybe mimic the grainy look it's probably not the same, and so it was just my inclination to try and go with grainy (as we often try to set ourselves apart), 2. Tri-x has always been touted as such a great film, perhaps "the best ever" (I don't go for such absolute statements myself really) and also it's supposed edge over most films on push/pull versatility.

So of course I realize the best thing is experiment, see what works for me, as photographers always find their style... however, father time is a MOFO. And I hate to have a favorite shot that doesn't fit in a show because it's a completely different looking film. Does it sound like grainy is really not the way to go?? If so I guess it's best to sacrifice some of those favorites now. Love to hear some of your thoughts, thanks.😉

 

[benmacphoto]

Well it seems like your subject matter would be nice on a fine grain film, something like TMax 100. But then throwing in the dimly lit venues and on camera flash I might say that you should use Tri X 400.

What I would do first in preparation for this is try out both films, a fine grain and a semi high speed. Under the conditions that you want to shoot the whole series in. And make some test prints. Then from that you'll have a better understanding of the look you want to pursue and which film to use.

Hope this helps.

 

[KenD]

I know this doesn't answer your question as stated, but I wonder if you really want a medium format look? Maybe the film you want is 120?

 

[Matt(1pt4)]

TMY2 in stock Xtol. Finer grained than Tri-X, very smooth, and because the shadows are a bit denser to start with, you can shoot it at 800 without adjusting the development, something which might be useful for your project. Not sure how it would take toners.

TMY2, Xtol Stock, 5 mins, 74F, Agitate every 30, M6TTL, CV 35 1.4 SC

 

[david.elliott]

Well, what developer are you using? That will affect your grain.

I use tri-x in diafine and in 8x10 prints, I dont find any grain to object to. There is a bit of grain, but it looks very nice. I could email you a full size jpeg if you want. I expose it at ISO 1250 too, so that might save you from needing on camera flash.

 

[newspaperguy]

Tri-X @ 200 in HC-110 "B" dilution since the late 70s.

Has always worked well for me. It just "feels" right for B&W.

Find a copy of Fred Picker's book: Zone VI Workshop (c)1974

(Amazon.com lists several copies for under $4.)

 

[NathanJD]

I would agree with the medium format comment, maybe going down that road would lead to the results you desire. i find that my love for grainy films is the because of the realist impression it gives to the subjects - it seems to bring out the age and testure in subject both living and inanimate.

i hate to say it but to find your 'look' i would strongly suggest getting a few different film types and shoot them side by side with a patient model in the kind of envyronment you're planning on displaying. artists don't paint masterpieces without sketching and planning first and trying out a number of films won't really take any longer than a week to order, shoot, develop and compare and would probably pay you back in dividends!

 

[Al Kaplan]

On camera flash has a completely different look than available light, a kind of 1940's newspaper photographers look about it. A slower finer grain film would suit this better than Tri-X since you're trying to mimic the look of a Rollieflex or even a 4x5 press camera. Keep the flash above and to the side of the lens to give you the infamous flash shadows.

Shoot in relatively low light and take your time between shots. Let the model's eyes recover from the last flash. This will give you that sexy look of big dark pupils with a single white highlight.

Shoot some tests using a blue filter such as an 80-B, to give you the look of the old orthochromatic films, the ones where red lipstick and nail polish are nearly black and "blush" on the cheeks (they used to call it "rouge") really stands out, defining the jaw line.

 

[lawrence]

Personally I would go for one of the fast high tech films like Delta 400 or, as mentioned already, TMY. Since you'll have time to meter properly you probably won't need the latitude of Tri-X and the Deltas have, in my opinion, better highlight separation than the traditional films. I recently used Delta 400 for some shots of the exterior of the Guggenheim in Bilbao and was delighted with the results. The difference between Delta 100 & Delta 400 is not that great, IMHO. I would also put Neopan 400 in this group of films (but note that it hates over exposure).

 

[maddoc]

Still my favorite is Tri-X in HC-110 "B" ... Unfortunately, it takes some experimenting to get the right combination of agitation / temperature / dev time that give the results working for you ...

 

[mfogiel]

If you really want a sleek and grainless look with good tonality, the new Tmax400-2 is interesting, as pointed above by Matt. However, I prefer to get the best possible tonality with some grain even in female shots. I find that Tri X in Diafine works great for that and you can expose it easily at EI 1000-1250, here are a few examples, the first two with the 85/1.4 Planar ZF, last one with the 50/1.5 C Sonnar ZM:

 

[Roger Vadim]

oh that Sonnar look.... great photos Mfogiel!

 

[naren]

Thank you all for your comments. Firstly, this is definitely a 35mm project. It lends itself towards that in a number of ways. When I'm shooting in dimly lit venues for instance I need the fast glass which you can't really get in MF. I'd love to have a superfast Nikkor zoom, but since they are almost a couple thousand bucks (and still not as fast) I'm usually carrying a heavy load of primes. I finally got a couple rangefinders to have as my 2nd body while I'm shooting... that is either the Bessa T (which I really do like so far and just got the 1:1 view finder for the 75mm CV) and the Konica Hexar (I would have no idea how the flash works if it weren't for this site and someone spending a lot of time getting that info from Konica!). The other camera which I've shot all this stuff with is my F3. I carry a ton of Nikon glass as I said, and I sometimes use the waist-level finder, thankfully a possiblity with the F3 flashshoe over the rewind dial, as many have complained about. I use it for over the crowd shots sometimes, and also with wide-angles where I think it can give a better perspective or more comfortable position for me (though I hate losing the verticals). And it is soooo nice to have a clear view with the HP finder because I've always worn glasses and it's kind of ridiculous to be at this point having had to mostly move my eye around with different cameras before taking the photo! Anyway I have thought about medium format and that it would be nice to do some shooting and have a few prints hanging that are way larger. Perhaps at street protests or some such thing where the details brought out of a crowd will be nice to see. And I am of the mind that although an art exhibit should have a cohesive look or style- it's maybe like having various sized prints in your portfolio vs. everything full-frame- it's a better idea to do what's suits each particular image best. The pictures I'm taking are in a number of different lighting scenarios- daylight direct sun, daylight overcast, electronic flash, ambient light at night on the street or in some venue... So far I've shot mostly Tri-x at 400, some at 200 in direct sun, some 250-267 with flash, and maybe just one so far at 1250 (which I had planned on developing in diafine). God there's so much here to address. Speaking of Diafine I did purchase some not too long ago and was surprised to see a single container b/c I heard it was a 2 part developer. I've just see replenisher sold separately and I surmised that's just to process again with the same dev. Also was bummed to see on the container ISO 800 for Tri-x prof, 1000 for standard. Is it right there's only pro version Tri-X in 135? Maybe I don't need to worry about that and 1250 works well? By the way, I hadn't specified but so far I've been processing my Tri-x in D76 1:1 or full strength.

If someone can comment on my processing woes on this thread would also be much appreciated!http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76271

So back to the subject of film grain and different possibilities... I am going to have to print some larger sized prints soon to see what Tri-X looks like at that size and maybe shoot a roll of something else this weekend for comparison. I will be shooting Friday quite a bit before the sun goes down outside and I suppose a good bit indoors with flash later on. Any votes on what other film I should try? T-max 2 looks interesting... when did it come out? Differences with T-max 400? Seems to me now perhaps it makes sense to use different films in different lighting situations, but here is the problem- being dirt poor. I'm sure I will often have the "wrong" film for the occasion and not be able to stockpile much. But I dunno maybe I can attempt a 2 film approach.😕 Any thoughts also on how the films' grain looks at 11x14 compared to each other or maybe compared to the Tri-X shot at 400, and 250 in sun??

 

[Trius]

Another developer to consider is Edwal FG-7. You can use it with or without sulfite to suit your purpose vis-a-vis grain, and according to the literature it is suitable for push-processing, though I've never used it for that. I used HC-110/B a la Adams/Picker for a long, long time, and loved it. But for this project, I would be tempted to try some FG-7 for Tri-X.

My own preference would be for TMY-2 ... the new emulsion came out in November of 2007, I think. Even though I live in Roch, I got my first roll from Tom A when he was here for LHSA, as Kodak gave out a fair bit to attendees. It's a very nice film. I love its tonality in Rodinal, though I haven't tried a large print from a TMY-2/Rodinal neg.

 

[david.elliott]

Speaking of Diafine I did purchase some not too long ago and was surprised to see a single container b/c I heard it was a 2 part developer. I've just see replenisher sold separately and I surmised that's just to process again with the same dev. Also was bummed to see on the container ISO 800 for Tri-x prof, 1000 for standard. Is it right there's only pro version Tri-X in 135? Maybe I don't need to worry about that and 1250 works well?

There are two powders in the diafine box. It is a two part developer, so one powder goes in one 1gal jug of distilled water, and the other in another jug. DO NOT MIX THEM. If you get part B in part A, then part A is useless and you have to go buy more diafine. Good thing it is cheap. 🙂

You dont have to replenish diafine at all. You have to replenish acufine, but thats different. You just reuse diafine over and over. It lasts a long time.

I've never used tri-x professional, but regular tri-x works fine in diafine from ISO 400 to ISO 3200 in my experience, but 400 and 3200 you get some little tiny bit of loss. I think 1250 or 1600 is the sweet spot based on the test roll I shot.

One great thing about diafine is that it is dead simple to use. It is the only developer I've ever used, and I've only been developing film for a few months. No need to worry about timing really - five minutes in A, five minutes in B then rinse and fix as normal. Longer than five minutes - no effect so go watch tv if you want. Temperature - no effect.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Tri-X professional is (was?) a very different film, ASA (ISO) 320, not 400, a slightly different spectral response and tonal range. It was optimized for studio photography, mostly portraits. It came in 120, 220, and sheet sizes. It also had a slight "tooth" to the emulsion for ease in pencil retouching.

It didn't push well either. I don't think that the ISO 320 Tri-X was ever made in 35mm.

 

[Uncle Bill]

How about Tri-x 400 in Xtol 1+1, I am also very pleased with the new and improved Tmax 400 in the same developer combo. My suggestion is to do a shoot off with Tri-x, New Tmax 400, Ilford HP5 and Delta 400, and Fuji Neopan 400 which is quite underrated.

 

[naren]

Tri-X professional is (was?) a very different film, ASA (ISO) 320, not 400, a slightly different spectral response and tonal range. It was optimized for studio photography, mostly portraits. It came in 120, 220, and sheet sizes. It also had a slight "tooth" to the emulsion for ease in pencil retouching.

It didn't push well either. I don't think that the ISO 320 Tri-X was ever made in 35mm.

aaaargh. I just tried to call Kodak and settle this once and for all but customer service goes home at 5. :bang: I'm familiar with 120 ISO 320 Tri-X, and I don't think it's ever been available in 135... However, on every box of 35mm of Tri-x 400 I've ever seen it says plainly "Professional" on it in grey following "Kodak" in the same font in red. Is that just their logo everywhere? Geez. I'd swear I've seen development times listed on the D76 (Lauder chemicals) bottle and elsewhere. The times listed for 320 are different.

Speaking of Tri-X variations though, I'm told it was changed a few years back and is no longer as good for available light and push processing. To be exact, the results one could get with Diafine at 1600, can now be had only shooting it at 1250. This is just what one photag told me, but he was somehow convincing. He said he shoots exclusively b&w available light and had been doing so his whole life. I mentioned T-max 3200 and he said it's way too grainy.

Now let me go check out that container of diafine b/c I may have another question on that.🙄

 

[naren]

So it turns out what I had bought is a jar for 1 quart solution of Acufine. I don't know if I just assumed this was the same as Diafine because I didn't see any store carrying both, or what...

So what is the scoop on Acufine? It says on the container 5 min. for Tri-x ISO 1000 and no times, so it does sound quite similar. Also says "use Acufine replenisher with this product". Quite vague instructions.

 

[Trius]

All the Kodak Tech Pubs are online, you should be able to figure everything out from them.

It feels like you're starting to get confused by too many variables and over-analyzing. Just pick a film (all are good) and a developer (commonly available and supportable) and run a test roll.