Maxapple88
Established
Hi,
I'm currently getting into medium format and therefore I'm stocking up on film. Silverprint in London sells TriX 320 in 220 rolls, which I figured would be convenient since 10 exposures at 6x7 isn't an awful lot before changing the film.
Does anyone have experience with TriX 320? Is it pretty much the same as regular TriX 400?
Also, will I be able to develop it with regular Paterson reels? Shouldn't be a problem...
cheers,
Max
I'm currently getting into medium format and therefore I'm stocking up on film. Silverprint in London sells TriX 320 in 220 rolls, which I figured would be convenient since 10 exposures at 6x7 isn't an awful lot before changing the film.
Does anyone have experience with TriX 320? Is it pretty much the same as regular TriX 400?
Also, will I be able to develop it with regular Paterson reels? Shouldn't be a problem...
cheers,
Max
spyder2000
Dim Bulb
220 will fit in regular Paterson reels with no problem. TXP (320) has a retouching base which you may be unfamiliar with and so it looks a little 'different' when processed. That difference is, to me, is a touch lower contrast than 'amateur' TX emulsions. Your first roll will give you acceptable results. I find the results pleasing with no adjustment in development time from standard TX.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The 320 is a completely different film. I have a suposition that Kodak probably regretted calling it "Tri-X".
The developing times are different. Its spectral response is different. It has a very different characteristic (H&D) curve. It has a retouching tooth for pencil retouching. It was optimized for portrait photography under controlled lighting and some people think that it works best under tungsten lighting. As for the 220 size rolls, you'll need special tanks and reels if you like stainless steel but any adjustable plastic reel that'll take 36 exposure rolls of 35mm will work. Supposedly Kodak is going to discontinue supplying 220 film.
The developing times are different. Its spectral response is different. It has a very different characteristic (H&D) curve. It has a retouching tooth for pencil retouching. It was optimized for portrait photography under controlled lighting and some people think that it works best under tungsten lighting. As for the 220 size rolls, you'll need special tanks and reels if you like stainless steel but any adjustable plastic reel that'll take 36 exposure rolls of 35mm will work. Supposedly Kodak is going to discontinue supplying 220 film.
Last edited:
furcafe
Veteran
vdonovan
Vince Donovan
I love it for portraits:
But I HATE rolling 220 onto stainless steel reels. Don't even try it unless you're working with a 220 Hewes reesl. I don't know how hard it will be on Pattersons, but try a dummy roll before you end up spending an entire afternoon cursing in the dark and ruining a roll of good shots. (Not that I've ever done that).
You can also get TXP in 120 if you want to check it out first.
But I HATE rolling 220 onto stainless steel reels. Don't even try it unless you're working with a 220 Hewes reesl. I don't know how hard it will be on Pattersons, but try a dummy roll before you end up spending an entire afternoon cursing in the dark and ruining a roll of good shots. (Not that I've ever done that).
You can also get TXP in 120 if you want to check it out first.
craygc
Well-known
Just dont use it as a general purpose outdoor film its not good for that. As compared to TriX 400 it gives a higher contrast, with less shadow and mid tone separation and easily blows highlights. However, with all those negatives, as Vince shows above, for portraits in controlled lighting, its magic.
Maxapple88
Established
I was going to use it for portraits, but with daylight outside. I might buy a roll and give it a try but generally I'll stick to TX400 I guess.
Thanks for the advice.
Thanks for the advice.