Why use Tri-x? (The budget film thread)

[grouchos_tash]

Looking at my own photos I couldn't tell you which ones were Tri-x, HP5+, Fomapan 400 or Ilford Pan 400 without looking at my notes. In my limited experience, I think if you get the development right (choice of developer, times, exposure etc) you can make any film look good

However, I can spot the difference between old and modern films. I shot some Delta 100 which was super sharp and fine grained but there's not much opportunity to use 100 films in North East England.

 

[Lauffray]

This is an interesting point, Michael. Does anyone else agree, I don't have enough experience yet.

Not sure I agree with that, saying "I like how D76 looks" is only half of it IMO. The final look you get is a combination of the emulsion and the developer, all other variables being fixed (temperature, agitation, push/pull process, dilution)

 

[mcfingon]

When Delta was I development at Ilford they contacted me to field test all of the Delta prototype products. Kodak did the same with the TMax products which are now different and finally very good. Anyway the Delta films are exceptional. Delta is a very smooth fine grain product and responds extremely to push / pull development in HC110.

I'm very impressed that Ilford and Kodak got you to test films and give feedback. I was going to say that in some ways Delta 100 reminds me of old Tri-X, particularly the TXP 320 version. There is a strong contrast to the Delta tonality that I really like and a high impression of sharpness enhanced by the deep blacks and bright whites.

 

[philipus]

I think Double-X is a better film. To my eyes it looks like Tri-X (or I'm not able enough to distinguish) and it also dries flat which Tri-X never does for me. And Double-X costs at least the same or less than Tri-X here in NL. I also like that Double-X pushes well, even to EI1000, using HC-110 or Diafine.

 

[jojoman2]

just a heads up for any other students out there: I called eastman kodak, their student discount is 30% for bulk film. That includes 35mm tri x and double x

 

[jojoman2]

No, just directly through eastman kodak. Tri-x is only available in 16mm form. It's just double x that you can get in 400' rolls for $260.

As an aside--will 400' rolls fit in most bulk loaders?

The only way I think you could get it cheaper is by purchasing film off folks who are moving to digital.

 

[f16sunshine]

I use HP5 and Tri-x interchangeably. They are very very similar imo.
At the very least similar enough to achieve desired results shooting each at the same speeds.
HP5 is a touch less money in canisters and much less in bulk.
I use mostly 120 film where economy is almost completely lost having only 8-12 frames ($.33-.50 per frame for HP5 vs $.41-62.5)
HP5 is around $1 less per roll retail.
All those dollars add up but really only in the long run.
My advice.... use what you want but give fair treatment and testing to alternatives.
There are a lot of nice films out there.

 

[John Bragg]

I have a soft spot for Tri-X in all its forms, past and present. I preferred the older formulation and I think these days, HP5+ is more to my taste as I looks like "Old" Tri-X the way I treat it.

 

[GarageBoy]

No, just directly through eastman kodak. Tri-x is only available in 16mm form. It's just double x that you can get in 400' rolls for $260.

As an aside--will 400' rolls fit in most bulk loaders?

The only way I think you could get it cheaper is by purchasing film off folks who are moving to digital.

400' does not fit into most bulk loaders - also Tri X movie film has nothing to do with the stills film

 

[lshofstra]

@jojoman2
Whoever told you that an mp doesn't take reloadable cartridges must have been thinking of the old Leica ones. The ones you get these days are the same size and shape as any modern cartridge. I use them in my M6 without any problems (an M6 doesn't take the old Leica cartridges either).