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

Oddly I only like HP5 pushed to 1600 ... at box speed I find it too low on contrast. I like contrast!

It's all film which means it's all good! :p


pcyc011108_34.jpg
 
Last edited:
maddoc said:
Tri-X at 1250 ISO in Diafine ? That looks very good !! :)

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

3212057862_6b8ce9ba04_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Ahh that photo's great. The little guy's expression is priceless.
Out of curiosity does anyone in the UK buy tri-x in bulk?
I'm currently getting my stuff from 7dayshop, but if there are places where I can get it cheaper if I buy more I'd like to know!
Oh, and I pushed some tri-x to 3200 last week.
The film's stunning.
I'd post some but at the moment all my negs have been submitted for assessment.
 
Tri-X (Arista Premium 400) @ 1600 in Diafine. From second roll out of my new M2, still working on scanning skills.
 
Last edited:
I can't imagine anybody bad-mouthing Tri-X. Like saying Olivia de Havilland or Susan Hayward were not pretty. I suppose it's possible to hold that opinion; seems so unlikey though.
 
The great advantage of Tri-X is its ability to deliver printable results in damned near any developer you care to soup it in. I love Neopan 400 equally but Tri X is more forgiving of less than perfect technique. Neopan Rocks if you can find its sweet spot, but Tri-X is the universal film par excellance.
 
I have been using Tri X since 1957!!!! My first camera was a DS M3 with a rater ratty looking 50f2 collapsible Summicron. The camera came with a brown paper bag of "un-canned" Tri X and the comment from the press photographer who handed it to me "This some new kind of film from Kodak - they say shoot it at 200 asa. That cant be any good!". I was 14 at the time and took to Tri X like a fish to water. Never once wavered either. So there has been some changes t it over the years, they raised the speed to 400/27 DIN (remember that designation). I have no idea how many rolls of the stuff i have shot, most likely in the 10 000's and I cant really say that the film ever let me down. Any foul-ups were mine. It is about as tolerant an emulsion one can wish for. Soup it in anything and it still works, zap it in airport X rays and it just shrugs it off. Find some old TriX that has been sitting for for 20-25 years in an attic, throw in some benzo and process it.
Oh yes, we all wailed and wrung our hands every time Kodak"improved" it - but somehow, dunk it in D76 1:1 for 10-11 minutes and it still works.
It ranks right up there with other photographic icons like the Gralab 300 timers, Leica M2's, Focomat 1C, Nikon F as a product that was perfect for what it was designed to do.
It is not the finest grain or longest tonal range - but it does exactly what i want it to do (or possibly it taught me to use it in such way that I got the result I wanted). I still feel nervous if i don't have a stash of a couple of 100 rolls of it my freezer ( and 10 rolls in my bag or jacket pockets).
Long may it live.
 
When I think of TriX
I feel inspired.
If I shoot B&W good old TriX I trust
Film grain is your friend with this emulation.

You can try so many different Developing and Exposing techniques.

These are some old Tx pics I have below

03.jpg



04.jpg
 
Last edited:
These photos taken at 1600 ISO and 3200ISO (and souped in Diafine and Rodinal) looked very good !! Something I have to try next !! :D

Thanks for sharing !!

Cheers,

gabor
 
maddoc said:
These photos taken at 1600 ISO and 3200ISO (and souped in Diafine and Rodinal) looked very good !! Something I have to try next !! :D
Click to expand...

Slightly off topic but as a noobie to development would I be correct to interpet this statement as that if I was using tri-x I expose based on EI 400 and then calculate the development time based on EI 1600 or 3200, essentially pushing it 2 or 3 stops??
 
Obscura said:
Slightly off topic but as a noobie to development would I be correct to interpet this statement as that if I was using tri-x I expose based on EI 400 and then calculate the development time based on EI 1600 or 3200, essentially pushing it 2 or 3 stops??
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I think the film is being exposed as if it was a 3200 ISO film, and developed longer according to the specifics of the developer.
 
Obscura said:
Slightly off topic but as a noobie to development would I be correct to interpet this statement as that if I was using tri-x I expose based on EI 400 and then calculate the development time based on EI 1600 or 3200, essentially pushing it 2 or 3 stops??
Click to expand...

Incorrect. If you did that, you'd just be overdeveloping your film.

Pushing film involves exposing it at a higher ISO than rated (effectively underexposing it), then compensating for that in the development phase by changing the time. If you're going to push film, you have to decide that when you're out shooting and expose the whole roll consistently.
 
Exposure determines shadow density, development controls contrast and highlight density. Increasing the development time to get an effective film speed of 1200-1600 in the mid tones will give you a printable image in emergencies, but you'll have burned out highlights and only gain a teensy bit of shadow detail, and it will do nothing at all for the darkest parts of the shadows. Clear film is clear film.
 
I learned to develop and print BW with Tri-X. I am relatively new to this passion, having started only two years ago, but I have tried all sorts of film. Somehow, I keep going back to Tri-X.

Tri-X @400, DD-X

3268983629_623dfddfa2_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom