Tri-X: REALLY that good?

[Keith]

I can't beleive the new X100 doesn't have a Tri-X setting under film types!

What were they thinking? 😛

 

[stewmander]

When I was learning photography in high school I was told, and it was also my expierence, that Tri-X (and Kodak in general) was more "forgiving". I shot Tri-X and Tmax, but found that I liked Ilford's film more, esp the contrast. Plus the student store sold Ilford film so it was really easy to get for me. I sill enjoy Ilford for B&W.

 

[ChrisN]

...

Chris - they look great. What volume of ID11 1+3 do you use per roll? Kodak is quite strident about extending the time at 1+1 unless you use a single roll in a 2 roll tank:
"You can develop one 135-3 roll (80 square inches)

in 473 mL (16 ounces) or two rolls together in 946 mL
(one quart) of diluted developer. If you process one
135-36 roll in a 237 mL (8-ounce) tank or two 135-36 rolls
in a 473 mL (16-ounce) tank, increase the development time​

by 10 percent (see the following tables)."

I remember using D76 1+2 but never 1+3 - I'm interested to know how you handle developer exhaustion.

Thanks,

Marty

Thanks Marty

I'm developing in Paterson two-reel tanks, and will usually develop a single roll in 400ml (total) of 1+3 developer, which makes for an easy calculation of 100ml of stock solution plus 300ml of water.

I have done a few tanks with two rolls of film, and then use 600ml total in the same dilution. No difference in the results. In both cases the developer is disgarded after developing (one-shot use).

In this doc (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427133131459.pdf, table on p6) Ilford recommend a time of 19 minutes @ 20c for TRI-X exposed @ 400iso. However I found that at that time I was not getting enough contrast and density to let me print a proper proof contact sheet with good black film borders and properly exposed images. I gradually extended the development time and lowered my personal film speed until I was happy with the result. The negs are fairly dense, but that also seems to work well with my particular enlarger setup (Durst Laborator 1200 with CLS450 colour head). Scanning with the Coolscan V is no problem (the images above are neg scans) usually with the gain control set to -0.5 to -1.

I think the total volume of developer handles any developer exhaustion problems, perhaps combined with the extended development time. I'm a bit surprised that I'm not blowing out the highlights on my negs, given the extended development time and my preference to expose the film at 200 EI. I am developing with the gadget described in this thread.

Cheers!

 

[PatrickT]

I love it! Arista Premium + HC-110B:


Michaela by patricklikeslight, on Flickr

 

[ChrisN]

And I can see why! Lovely shot!

Is this 35mm? Looking at Nicolas' lovely photo at post #17 in this thread, it screams "medium format" to me! I think that is a difference that has to be recognised, for the improved tonality, sharpness and smoother grain.

 

[Vincent.G]

The grain of Tri-X is addictive. Even more when pushed to 1600. I like it for its versatility and like what Tom mentioned, it is a very forgiving film and this suits people who shoots freely with meterless mechanical cameras while guessing exposures in their head. But I use it metered cameras though and results have always been good. Generally I find Fuji Neopan 400 a little less forgiving on exposure errors and not good when pushed. I have yet to try Ilford film.

 

[mathomas]

Check out the work of Stephane Marco om flickr. Yes, it's really that good.

Actually, that guy seems to make every film look great. His Acros 100 photos approach medium format quality IMO, though he shoots 35mm. I use Rodinal as does he (often), so I'd like to know his secret 🙂

Thanks for turning me on to his stream!

A Tri-X example:


Essais Elmar 3,5cm 4 by stephane_marco, on Flickr



An Acros 100 example:


Yucca rigida by stephane_marco, on Flickr

 

[tlitody]

Simple question. Everyone seems to love it, and I'd like to know why. It's £5 a roll, I can get Agfa 400s for £1.80 a roll.

I'm interested as to why it got this following. Is it the look, ease of developing, something else, all of the above? What does it do that others don't?

And what do you soup it in, and why?

You can get cheap(ish) film from:

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cat=1&type=1180&man=0&filterwords=&go=SEARCH&comp=

No VAT from the channel islands and shipping is free.

 

[charjohncarter]

What I like about Trix, is that you can get completely repeatable results. I miss with Tmax films often, maybe latitude is the reason. Tmax to me has a very long tonal range, longer that Trix, but you have to hit the exposure. Trix has room for mistakes in exposure, the tonal range isn't as long as Tmax, but I like my results. One problem I have with many films is that different scenes that have different numbers of Zones will not work on the same roll. Trix is nice for me because low contrast and bright sun scenes are both able to be rendered with Trix.

Here is a low contrast and a high contrast scene off of the same roll:

High:

Low:

and Lower:

same roll.

 

[mfogiel]

Flexibility, tonality, acceptable sharpnes, nice looking grain - what else do you want?
Speaking of price, Order in large quantities from freestyle (arista premium 400) - costs only 2 USD per roll.

 

[Bingley]

@Mike: Stephane gets magical results from old Leica gear and ther's no doubting his darkroom skills. Here's a link to the photo of his I had in mind re: my previous post.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/msteph/5767865919/in/photostream

 

[HHPhoto]

I find Tri-X a good all rounder, I think it's following is mostly for it's history, not it's performance. Loads of people love it, but I've found it to be sort of average, I don't mean that as an insult, just that it's a jack of all trades, master of none, and for any given task, you may be able to find a film you prefer.

Agreed.
I've never understood all the hype concerning this film. Overall an average film, concerning fineness of detail it is even one of the worst 400 ISO BW films on the market (TMY-2, Delta 400, Neopan 400, XP2 Super and BW 400 CN have much better resolution, sharpness and finer grain).

Personally I prefer TMY-2, because of
- finer tonality, especially at higher magnification
- better sharpness
- significantly higher resolution
- significantly finer grain
- better results at ISO 800 and 1600.

Cheers, Jan

 

[J. Borger]

Agreed.
I've never understood all the hype concerning this film. Overall an average film .............

+1. It is not very sharp, curls like hell and is about the worst B&W film to scan. I started out with Trix because of the hype and sticked to it for a long time. But after experimenting with other brands i do not use Trix very much anymore.

I prefer neopan 400 in 35mm and HP5/Delta 400 in 120mm.
But above all i prefer slower films like Delta 100, APX100, Rollei Retro 80S and PanF.
I realy wonder why so many people keep shooting Iso 400 film like trix during the summertime.

 

[Turtle]

Its not the sharpest, or fastest or finest grained film available, but it has a tendency to produce some of the 'best' prints I have ever made. It has an ability to produce classic B&W richness in *****s when you nail it and often gets you there (or close) even when you don't. Jack of all trades it is, but when you shoot a lot, under varied situations, this is just what you need IMHO. Master of none? Perhaps; however, I suspect those those would regard this as a real negative point have not seen enough master prints made from negs using this film. It is capable of mouth watering beauty with good printing and can be far more evocative than technically better films, like D400, Tmax 400. I like the latter at times, btu TriX looks better to me more of the time.

It is also supremely flexible, meaning if you suddenly need to shoot at 1000 and you have left your D3200 at home, you can work with the TriX. I would not recommend trying the same with Neopan 400 for example (which I find good to about 500/640 at a stretch)

 

[sanmich]

Robustness

I like it because it takes a lot of abuse in terms of exposure/development.
For me, that's the most important thing.
when I used Tmax (old version) I got very different results from film to film, and this, again, for me, is much worse than a little bit of grain.
BTW, I soup it in Emofin, and it's not THAT grainy...

TX is the WV beetle of the films. It just works...

 

[Tom A]

TriX has been my "main" film for 50+ years. It will do what I want it to do. No surprises. The Tmax2-400 is much finer grained, sharper etc, as is Neopan/Delta etc. - but you have to get your exposures right - very little exposure latitude (compared with triX).
TriX is like a pair of perfectly "worn" in shoes or a leather jacket that conforms to your body's shape. It is just a comfortable film to use - particularly shooting without a meter - Sunny f16 rule. HP5 is fine - but I was weaned on TriX and never saw a reason to change.
Whatever changes Kodak has done to it over the last 50+ years have not been significant enough to change my opinion either. I have no idea how many rolls of it have shot - probably 20-30 000 or maybe even more. It has a comfort zone for me - I can pull a 11x14 or even a 16x20" print from a 35 negative and it works. It can be pushed and pulled if needed and still holds up.
I am quite sure that if I had started with Ilfords HP5 - I would have stuck with that. Photography is light and composition - and if you remove the mechanics of it and learn to trust the film - why change. You are just adding unnecessary steps to the process.
Whatever film you are using - it has a learning curve when it comes to rendering light as an image and once you get the hang of it - you can forget about it and shoot without having to worry about another complication in the process.

 

[Koni Kowa]

Photography is light and composition - and if you remove the mechanics of it and learn to trust the film - why change. You are just adding unnecessary steps to the process.
Whatever film you are using - it has a learning curve when it comes to rendering light as an image and once you get the hang of it - you can forget about it and shoot without having to worry about another complication in the process.

That is so true and well said. 🙂 😉