Tri-X: REALLY that good?

[Tim Gray]

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.

I don't know your experience level, but I'd be willing to say contrast issues are probably a result of your development and not the film. And if your development is fine, then the next likely culprit is your scanning/post processing. Contrary to popular belief, 'straight out of the scanner' looks like crap. Either you need to make some contrast decisions in your scan or you software is doing it automatically for you, but it is being done.

My scans look very flat. A tiny bit of work in Photoshop fixes up the contrast. The negatives print fine with good contrast at grade 2 in the darkroom.

That's not to say you should try different films and figure out what you might be happiest with.

 

[Tom A]

What makes TriX pretty unique is the flexibility. It can be pulled and pushed just about any way you want ,other films can be pushed/pulled too - but with TriX there is a huge amount of information available as just about anyone who took pictures in the 50's/60's and 70's used it.
I started with TriX in late 50's and it has remained my "regular" film. There are films with finer grain, even sharper grain - but TriX will deliver a usable negative in just about any developer. It is also forgiving - you screw up and it will still work, somehow!
The other makes are fine, but I hate the fact that they tend to come and go. Once you got it down pat - you want to be sure that the film is available for the next 20-30 years!
Just finished a self-imposed project "Back to Basics" - TriX in D76 1:1/10 min. Scanned negs from the 60's and onwards. On our Flickr site there is a set tagged "Back to Basics" with about 600 shots - virtually all done with TriX and D76 (and variations of D76 like ID11, Adox, split D76 etc).

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I've shot many thousands of feet of Tri-X over the decades and, as Tom says, it just works. Load up a bunch of eight or 10 reel tanks of Tri-X, dump in the the D-76, and go. Could do it in my sleep (and many long nights did just that!). Is it the best? Who knows what that means. Put food on my table for many years, though.

 

[_larky]

I've ordered some film and will pick up the D76 tomorrow if it's in stock. Now all I need to do is learn to focus 😉

 

[MISH]

focus is overrated but Tri-x is not (try some Rodinal)

 

[250swb]

Tri-X is overated. The point is that it was the only readily available and good 400 ASA film for a long time so the mystique has had a long time to develop.

I used it all the time until HP5 was introduced, and Agfa and Fuji have since added further more interesting and characterful films (long sigh that Neopan is no more). But HP5 gives you more to work with from the negative, and if you like the look of Tri-X a simple change of the Curves in post processing gets you there with all your options still in reserve. Oh, and HP5 dries flat, a considerable advantage in the days of scanning.

Steve

 

[ChrisN]

... 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.

I'm exposing it at 200 EI and developing in ID-11 1+3 for 40 minutes (yes - 40 minutes) at 20c with minimum agitation. I like a fairly dense neg and it still scans ok.

(35mm negs shot in OM-1 w/ 50/1.8 lens.)

 

[KenR]

I used the Arista version of it last year and was not impressed. Tmax400 seems sharper and less grainy (used at 400 in HC110 dilution H).

 

[paulfish4570]

speaking of babies and tri-x:

metered at 320, developed at 400, d-76 1+1, 9.75 minutes, 68F/20C. arista premium 400/tri-x at $2 per 36-exposure roll. other kodak products and HP5 much more expensive until freestyle runs out of ap 400 at that price.

 

[Bobbo]

I prefer it in 4.5-5 minutes of HC-110 "B" solution. I'm impatient, and I can make enough solution for a single roll at a time (a plastic syringe for reloading ink cartridges does the job perfectly). I'm not weighing out grams of D-76 for a tank. Too much work, and results are very similar. I have 10 bags of D76, so maybe I should just mix up a bag and order some more film from Freestyle. Maybe I'll change my mind...

Oh, and shooting at 12,800 ISO is pretty fun, too. Never knew I could shoot at 1/125 and f8 at 2 a.m. 🙂 Good thing I kept my Rodinal.

 

[andredossantos]

Love it in 120. Prefer HP5+ and Neopan 400 in 35mm.

Even though I prefer the others I still like it and shoot it once in a while when I want that Tri-X "look". Consequently, I think that's the reason it's so popular. All the other benefits aside (pushing, pulling, development simplicity), many of the worlds classic b&w photos were on Tri-X and it's essentially a classic at this point.

 

[PatrickONeill]

[...] and shooting at 12,800 ISO is pretty fun, too. Never knew I could shoot at 1/125 and f8 at 2 a.m. 🙂 Good thing I kept my Rodinal.

that, I got to see.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I used the Arista version of it last year and was not impressed. Tmax400 seems sharper and less grainy (used at 400 in HC110 dilution H).

That's because Tmax 400 IS sharper and less grainy. That's what Tmax films were designed for. Try it in D-76 1+1 or Tmax Developer 1+7 for even nicer results.

Tri-X has a different tonal look than Tmax. I like them both, but have been shooting a lot more Tri-X because I'm experimenting with Pyro developers, which don't work well with T-grain films.

 

[paulfish4570]

i don't like tri-x's long-axis curl, but a betterscanning glass and flip-flop in PP take care of that.
ilford products - including kentmere - ARE flatter ...

 

[Freakscene]

I use Tri-X because it has the best latency of any 400 speed film, quality changes least in response to poor storage (hot or variable temperature, humid) and fogs slowest among 400 speed films when x-rayed multiple times (no idea why, but I tested it and it turned out that way - I guess the silver in its emulsion is less exposed less by secondary processes and only reduced if that grain was hit by radiation, rather than reducing it and others around it - could be due to the ratio of accelerents and restrainers).

South Africa, 2009. Tri-X, Xtol 1+3.

I'm exposing it at 200 EI and developing in ID-11 1+3 for 40 minutes (yes - 40 minutes) at 20c with minimum agitation. I like a fairly dense neg and it still scans ok.
(35mm negs shot in OM-1 w/ 50/1.8 lens.)

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

 

[Keith]

Tri-X is good but IMO when you get the developing of Neopan 400 to click for you it's better.

 

[semilog]

Tri-X is a great film – Can't complain about any of the results that I've gotten with it over the years. But I think Neopan 400 is at least as good, I like HP5+ a smidge more, and I like TMAX400-2 still more than that.

The truth is that all four are terrific films, and I'd be happy to shoot any one of them exclusively. I've not played with Delta 400 at all...

 

[sper]

It's not 'the best' out there. HP5 is a little bit sharper actually... I use Tri-X thought because it has a great lineage. I think of Garry Winogrand and Robert Frank, who shot kodak B&W film and made such great images. Also, it does look pretty fantastic when well handled. Especially in medium format, which is where it goes from being great, to being jaw droppingly beautiful.

 

[Vilk]

mmmmmmmmm... in DD-X... a curve that never ends... sublime... mystical... gabrielle anwar in the tango... you get the picture... but i digress... just stepped out for one beer...

 

[Steve M.]

I would suggest that it has developed a following because it was, and is, a great film. If they stopped making it my photography would suffer, for sure.