Tri-X pan and Tri-X

foon

foon

Established
Local time
2:50 PM
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
129
I read from the kodak website and found the the Tri-X pan is discontiued
and the developing time is a bit longer than the 400TX

Is there much diiference between these two film?

------------------------------------------
I want to try agfa's black and white(cheap!), but I only buy bulk film,
so if I don't like it, there's gonna be a lot of it
how are they compare to Tri-X
 
Well, i don't know if i have the answer, but at one time there was Tri-x pro, and Tri-x pan, and the "pro" film was rated at ISO 320, and the "consumer" Tri-x was (is) ISO 400. An additional, and perhaps most siginificant difference was that the "pro" film had a matt surface back (non-emulsion) side so as to take retouching pencils and such. Yes, people use to actually retouch b/w negatives, particularly for portraits. There were (are?) several Kodak films in color and b/w that had the matt textured base to allow retouching.
 
foon said:
I want to try agfa's black and white(cheap!), but I only buy bulk film,
so if I don't like it, there's gonna be a lot of it
how are they compare to Tri-X
Click to expand...


You will find that APX-400, the most equivalent Agfa film to Tri-X to be a considerably different beast, and also considerably different to other ISO 400 b/w films. Fuji Neopan 400 would be similar to Tri-X, Afga APX-400 is just different, and more grainy, in general. If you like Tri-x, that is not a guide for comparing APX-400.
I consider APX-100 to be a wonderful film. APX-400 is the least favorite to me, of all the ISO 400 films.
 
I'm using Kodak 400TX now. I bought a 100 foot roll a few months ago. It's good if properly developed. You MUST shoot a test roll and fine tune your development time. My first roll was almost useless. The time Kodak recommends is too short. I develop in HC-110 dilution B for 5 minutes at 70 degrees F.
 
photodog said:
I'm using Kodak 400TX now. I bought a 100 foot roll a few months ago. It's good if properly developed. You MUST shoot a test roll and fine tune your development time. My first roll was almost useless. The time Kodak recommends is too short. I develop in HC-110 dilution B for 5 minutes at 70 degrees F.
Click to expand...
i agree with that
I am not a very experienced at developing
I develop according the kodak's suggesting time and found it dissatisfactory...too grey..
after experimenting with the developing time a bit, my results are better now (still need more work on that)
 
phototone said:
You will find that APX-400, the most equivalent Agfa film to Tri-X to be a considerably different beast, and also considerably different to other ISO 400 b/w films. Fuji Neopan 400 would be similar to Tri-X, Afga APX-400 is just different, and more grainy, in general. If you like Tri-x, that is not a guide for comparing APX-400.
I consider APX-100 to be a wonderful film. APX-400 is the least favorite to me, of all the ISO 400 films.
Click to expand...
do you have examples of APX-400 and 100?
thanks
 
Don't tell me they discontinued Tri-X and this is all the reaction it gets? They must have just changed the name. "Pan" means panchromatic and all Tri-X is pan film.
As a not-very-interesting aside, you may have wonderwed why the large-format version is rated at 320. In the beginning, all formats of Tri-X were 320 but some available-light photographers tested it themselves and then convinced Kodak that it was a 400 speed film, so the Big Yellow Father changed number on the roll format version. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . . .
 
Poptart said:
Don't tell me they discontinued Tri-X and this is all the reaction it gets? They must have just changed the name. "Pan" means panchromatic and all Tri-X is pan film.
As a not-very-interesting aside, you may have wonderwed why the large-format version is rated at 320. In the beginning, all formats of Tri-X were 320 but some available-light photographers tested it themselves and then convinced Kodak that it was a 400 speed film, so the Big Yellow Father changed number on the roll format version. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . . .
Click to expand...
thanks poptart
that's interesting to know :)
 
It's pretty well known that Kodak's published times for 400TX are way too short. Everyone accepts this except Kodak themselves, it appears. Generally, I use the "unofficial" dilution H (1:63 or half dilution B) for 12 mins at 70 degrees - sometimes a bit longer depending on what's on the roll. Definitely do a few tests - depending on the dilution you use, I think photodog's suggested time is a good place to start. Much depends on the type of water you're using to mix your chemicals. The water is very hard down here, so most of my times are longer than the recommendations.
 
foon said:
I read from the kodak website and found the the Tri-X pan is discontiued
Click to expand...

What is your source? I mean, do you have a link from Kodak's website? Their technical literature says nothing about this. As far as I can tell this is nothing but a rumour.
 
gabrielma said:
What is your source? I mean, do you have a link from Kodak's website? Their technical literature says nothing about this. As far as I can tell this is nothing but a rumour.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean there will be no Tri-X, maybe you misunderstood me:p

I was just looking at b&h's website and saw they call it Tri-X pan, so I was curious and saw kodak's website says it has been replaced
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.jhtml
 
foon said:
I read from the kodak website and found the the Tri-X pan is discontiued
Click to expand...

foon said:
I didn't mean there will be no Tri-X, maybe you misunderstood me
Click to expand...

No, I don't think I misunderstood you, I think you mispoke from the very beginning. (and I didn't say you said there will be no Tri-X) :bang: :eek:

Ok, Kodak clearly states:

"KODAK TRI-X Pan Film has been replaced by KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 Film / 400TX.
KODAK TRI-X Pan Professional Film has been replaced by KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320 Film / 320TXP."

This is the way it has been since at least 2001. It's like Classic Coke and New Coke; since after the 1986 marketing bomb, due to people crying bloody murder that "Coke" was discontinued, they made "Classic" Coke. In the end, they just got rid of the labels, and it's just plain old Coke (ok, let's not go into the Vanilla and Lemon Coke, that just sucks).

So no, Tri-X Pan is not discontinued. And Watt's still on First, Hooeh's on Second, I. Donough's on Third, and pitching, Tom Morrow. :D
 
Last edited:
gabrielma said:
No, I don't think I misunderstood you, I think you mispoke from the very beginning. (and I didn't say you said there will be no Tri-X) :bang: :eek:

Ok, Kodak clearly states:

"KODAK TRI-X Pan Film has been replaced by KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 Film / 400TX.
KODAK TRI-X Pan Professional Film has been replaced by KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320 Film / 320TXP."

This is the way it has been since at least 2001. It's like Classic Coke and New Coke; since after the 1986 marketing bomb, due to people crying bloody murder that "Coke" was discontinued, they made "Classic" Coke. In the end, they just got rid of the labels, and it's just plain old Coke (ok, let's not go into the Vanilla and Lemon Coke, that just sucks).

So no, Tri-X Pan is not discontinued. And Watt's still on First, Hooeh's on Second, I. Donough's on Third, and pitching, Tom Morrow. :D
Click to expand...
My bad..... :bang:

I'm really sorry....

ok, that coke thing is something new to me
I wasn't even born then
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom