Why I love Tri-X and some things I have learned.

[Ronald_H]

Say what you will about the internet, but thanks to it I have learned almost as much about photography than going out and doing it 😉

I remember vividly ten years ago, my first SLR, my first negative scanner, my first tries with Photoshop. And of course the photography related newsgroups on usenet. About a year and half ago my interest in Leicas led me to this forum. On the whole nice knowledgable people with a true love for photography. I learned a lot of things from this site as well, and I thank everyone that has contributed a lot.

BUT, if you gain your own experience about certain subjects there comes a time when you see that some people don't know sh*t, but are ever so eloquent. Others still amaze me by the depth of their knowledge.

Why this rant? I once read someone here comment on Tri-X as an 'old and mediocre film'. That my friends, may be the single most stupid remark I have ever heard in 10 years of photography. Of course there are sharper films, and less grainy ones. Cheaper ones as well. But after dunking a critical roll in fresh Diafine I know again why I love it to death.

Alas, not shot with a RF. I don't have a fast 90 for my M2 (yet). This is from a Nikon FM with a 85mm f1.8. Kodak Tri-X in Diafine @ 1250ISO.

 

[40oz]

very nice shot. Thanks.

 

[crawdiddy]

I certainly wouldn't call it mediocre. It may be old, but that's not a criticism.

I've had better results with HP5+ lately, and I'm not sure why. For some reason, my past attempts at Tri-X turned out with too much contrast. Possibly it's a flaw in my development process. And maybe that's why I have better luck with the less contrasty HP5+.

But I have too much respect for Tri-X (and I see other people getting such excellent results with it) to ignore it. So, I'm giving it another try.

Nice photo, Ronald.

 

[dfoo]

TriX is a great film! I use it 95% of the time. I do find it very contrasy when pushed though... even a single stop. Perhaps that is my choice of developer. I used to use D76 and HC110. These days I use XTOL 1+1 for all my development.

 

[crawdiddy]

Yes, D76 1+1 is my developer of choice. Perhaps XTOL would be less contrasty?

And what about Rodinal?

 

[Matt(1pt4)]

Whatever Tri-X's other weaknesses may be, nothing works quite as well in Diafine, except for maybe Neopan 1600. Nice shot, btw.

 

[Nokton48]

Nothing wrong with XXX or XX 'cept operator error.

 

[Leighgion]

I've been sticking almost exclusively to Tri-X and D-76 for both 135 and 120. Hear all the time that you can get better results with other developers, but being so new to the process I've stuck with the book combo. No complaints rated at 400 or pushed to 800 so far.

Olympus XA

Pick anything though, and you'll find somebody that hates it. Pick a stupid reason, and you'll find somebody that insists it's a good one. Everybody has an opinion. Doesn't mean it's worth anything. 🙂

 

[dfoo]

These are a couple of shots I developed yesterday. Both are TriX EI800, developed in XTOL 1+1 10.5 minutes at 20C.

My wife at Christmas. Hexar AF 35mm f2.0 1/30.

My son at his birthday. 28mm f1.9 1/15.

 

[filmfan]

And maybe that's why I have better luck with the less contrasty HP5+.

Except it's the opposite...

 

[bmattock]

Is that a ferry boat? A very nice photo, I like it a lot.

And yes, Tri-X and D76 would easily keep me happy indefinitely.

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

Tri-X, Chinese New Year (M2, 90/f2):

 

[maddoc]

Tri-X at 1250 ISO in Diafine ? That looks very good !! 🙂

I have only tried Neopan Presto400 at 1250ISO in Diafine so far:

 

[Keith]

Tri-X at 1250 ISO in Diafine ? That looks very good !! 🙂

I have only tried Neopan Presto400 at 1250ISO in Diafine so far:

Great photo Gabor ... I too am a bit of a Fuji fan! Tri-x hasn't quite mesmerised me the way Neopan 400 did yet.

I think Tri-X's strength is it's versatility.

 

[maddoc]

Keith, thank you ! 🙂

If Fuji wouldn't have stopped making bulk rolls, Neopan 400PR would be my first choice. On the other hand, as you mentioned, Tri-X is the most versatile BW film, IMHO.

 

[Keith]

Keith, thank you ! 🙂

If Fuji wouldn't have stopped making bulk rolls, Neopan 400PR would be my first choice. On the other hand, as you mentioned, Tri-X is the most versatile BW film, IMHO.

Same same ... but isn't Freestyles Legacy Pro supposedly Neopan 400 ... or can't we confirm that it's even Fuji yet. I'm so close to buying some for a look see as they are selling it in 100ft rolls!

 

[maddoc]

" ... Freestyles Legacy Pro supposedly Neopan 400 ... " ?? That would be indeed good news ! Has someone tried this stuff already ??

 

[Lilserenity]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on Tri X, I must admit I have never pushed it as I usually turn to Neopan 1600 when I need something faster.

That said, it does have a wonderful quality that I even like in landscapes -- even in 35mm! I won't regugitate pictures here but I wrote a blog entry yesterday which has some photos (I think 1-2 have been taken using Tri X):

Link to photos: South Downs National Park

I found it really came into its own when I was able to develop it myself, since then even though I do occassionally use a finer emulsion like Delta 100/400 or Pan F, I still find myself loading up with it. I also really like the results I get with it loaded into my M2 and Voigtlander Ultron 35mm lens.

I will have to try pushing it and try out Diafine as well some time, I've been meaning to for too long!

 

[Leighgion]

Is that a ferry boat? A very nice photo, I like it a lot.

And yes, Tri-X and D76 would easily keep me happy indefinitely.

Thanks! And yes, that's a ferry. I live in Western Washington on one of the islands, so it's part of mundane life for me to go anywhere.

 

[Ronald_H]

Tri-X at 1250 ISO in Diafine ? That looks very good !! 🙂

I have only tried Neopan Presto400 at 1250ISO in Diafine so far:

Ooh great shot!!!

Sorry for 'regurgitating' my shots, but sometimes 'in your face' works best 😀

I also like Neopan 1600 in Diafine btw, just ordered some rolls again. Just a bit more speed. But Tri-X in Diafine does exactly what I always wanted and it also scans very well. For those who shot concerts, you know that your 'hit rate' is desperately low, no matter how good the photographer and his or hers equipment.

HP5+, although similar to Tri-X, just works a bit less for me. But it might even be more forgiving than Tri-X. Ah well, so much fun with film!