Tri-X: REALLY that good?

[_larky]

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?

 

[Monz]

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 TriX for around £3-50 per roll from places like 7dayshop.com and Ag Photographics (Birmingham, UK).

 

[thegman]

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.

 

[emraphoto]

i love the stuff. 400 - 800 on the same roll. really workable and easy to scan.

d-76/10 mins (shout out to Tom) and water for stop. can do it in my sleep.

 

[Bingley]

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

 

[muser53]

Larky, Just remember these words, when all else fails, Tri-X. 🙂

 

[Fotohuis]

Tri-X 400 is a very flexible film: Perfect results you can have from iso 200 - 1600 with very different developers.

That's the main point why it's so popular.

BTW your Retro 400S film is even sharper then Tri-X but it is less flexible in push development.
GBP 1,80 is a very good price .....

 

[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?

Historic and locality and availability reasons. Tri-X was the film of choice for many many photographers in the US years ago. HP5 was the film of choice for UK photographers. And availabilty in that HP5 has always been readily available in the UK and Tri-X in the US.
For what its worth the old TriX was grainier/contrastier than the old HP5.

But films are constantly being updated and relative differences change. So if you want 400 speed film try a few, see the difference and pick which one suits the task at hand. Personally I have moved to Delta 400 but that doesn't mean its better than other films. It just means its the one I currently prefer. YMMV.

 

[Pablito]

I don't like the "new improved" (thinner and less grain) tri-x. I prefer HP5+ which is quite close to the Tri-X of the early 2000s.

 

[charjohncarter]

I keep coming back to it, so it must do something for me.

 

[cjbecker]

I have shot it once but I decided to go with hp5 for a while just because I wanted to go against the grain. I wanted to see what hp5 could handle.

 

[Tim Gray]

It's a great film. But there are other great films out there too. Even at ISO 400.

I'd personally say don't believe the hype. Buy some Tri-x, T-Max 400, Delta 400, and HP5+ and try them all. Pick which one you like best. And always remember, the one you picked is the one YOU liked best; it's not the best film ever, just the best one for you.

I shoot a lot of Tri-X. It really is great for a lot of things. But I think T-Max 400 is pretty amazing too.

 

[Moriturii]

I wanted to go against the grain.

Great pun 🙂

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I generally like it, although I have been using Neopan 400 for the last couple of years and Delta 400 before that. I particularly like it in larger format sizes, contrast is easy to control, it is forgiving in its exposure and development compared to modern emulsions like TMAX and Acros. Reciprocity times are a killer though.

I think of it as a classic, like "water" is a great beverage. Other things have more flavor (or have other specialized effects ;-)), but when you are thirsty nothing beats it.

 

[_larky]

OK, thanks for the responses. I guess it developed a following because all the big boys were using it. I'll buy 10 rolls and see how it goes. 🙂

I'm on a quest to find the film/chemical mix that suits me. Currently I'm either getting very bland negs with no contrast, or way too much contrast with pure blacks and pure whites. So I'm trying out a lot of films to see how they suit me, my souping technique, and my scanner.

 

[Koni Kowa]

I like Tri-X. It's only 3€/roll here in France.

Tri-X 400 pushed @1600ISO

 

[Ronald M]

Been improved over the grainy non sharp versions from 1960 and 1985.

Still looks similar, but with less grain and more sharpness.

It has a certain look some really like, but in actuality there are better films for sharpness and fine grain. But the look can not be duplicated. Perhaps they like the long flat toe as opposed to the straight line of T Max or deltas. This means less shadow separation, but more exposure latitude, and an enriched middle tone.

It has beautiful tones in 4x5, but that is a different film,

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

The look. Period.

 

[bob338]

I've done a lot of framing for pro and semi-pro photographers. With rare exception every time I ask what they shoot, the reply is "Tri-X, what else woud I use?" Occasionally I hear HP-5, but it's pretty rare and usually from younger photographers.
I think it's just about the perfect film and worth every penny.
And I'll bet it's the last film standing at the end.

my .02
bob

 

[_larky]

I like Tri-X. It's only 3€/roll here in France.

Tri-X 400 pushed @1600ISO

Wow wow wow. I simply cannot get anywhere near that with my negs. That is pin sharp. I'm depressed now.