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

J

jojoman2

Guest
Hi folks,

This summer I'll be buying over $1000 worth of film, and I'm curious if any of you shoot more inexpensive films like Arista EDU 400 or Kentmere 400, both of which are over a dollar cheaper per 36 ex. roll. The 100 speed Arista and Kentmere are even cheaper, though I don't shoot at iso 100 very often. I am most familiar with D76 and HC110, although I'm looking to try some rodinal at some point. Really I'm very open to experimenting with any combo.

Is the new formulation of tri-x worth continued loyalty despite rising prices? I've checked out Eastman double-x, it doesn't look much cheaper. I don't understand why a 100ft roll of ilford delta 400 is $50 bucks cheaper than a 100ft of tri-x either. I've gotten great results from delta 400--if my mp (2003 model) took reloadable cartridges I would go for that in a heartbeat.
 
Tri-X is wonderful film. I generally shoot less expensive film, however. Part of the reason is cost, and part of the reason is that I generally do not need the speed that Tri-X offers.

I am not into brand loyalty. I love Kodak and wish them well, but I do not owe them anything, nor do they owe me anything. Loyalty is a one-way street - Kodak won't be knocking on your door to buy you stuff anytime soon. If you want to be loyal to Kodak, by all means do so; free country and all that. I'm not against it, I'm just not into it.
 
If you want the Tri-X look nothing will else will give it to you. It is contrastier than Kentmere 400, has according to some more pleasing grain than Kentmere 400 and it is a classic for a reason. It is also faster and has better QC than Arista Edu 400 that being said if you are after a 400 ISO film and are open to a less contrasty look with different grain pattern then Kentmere 400 is a good choice a bit grainier, more greys less contrast than Tri-X but also cheaper and contrast can enhanced by longer dev. times or at the printing stage. Kentmere 400 and D76 work well together. To be honest at most enlargment sizes the difference between most ISO 400 films is negligible.
 
Tri x

Tri x

Tri x forgives all sins

It has wide exposure latitude , shoots in lower light conditions,
In truth I haven't shot tri x in a few years , playing with digital ,and
Shooting mainly color slide currently ,
When I go back it will be tri x
 
I've shot almost entirely Tri-X/D76. I haven't experimented with other types of BW film, i suppose, besides T-max and hp5+ for photo, and Plus-X, Double-X, and a couple of reversals for motion pictures.

http://www.intelligentlifemagazine.com/content/features/bryan-appleyard/tri-x-factor
In the article I linked, it's described as "steely" and "not warm." Can anyone recommend a pretty, warm film stock that is similarly considered a classic emulsion/developer?
 
I haven't been shooting long enough to have developed any brand loyalty. I know the old tri-x was beloved for a reason. I'm curious how they changed the formula for this new iteration of tri-x. Why did they change it?

I shoot kentmere for family stuff, but haven't made any prints from it. I suppose I could make an 11x14 print from well exposed negatives of tri-x and kentmere and see if I can tell the difference.
 
Samouraï said:
I've shot almost entirely Tri-X/D76. I haven't experimented with other types of BW film, i suppose, besides T-max and hp5+ for photo, and Plus-X, Double-X, and a couple of reversals for motion pictures.

http://www.intelligentlifemagazine.com/content/features/bryan-appleyard/tri-x-factor
In the article I linked, it's described as "steely" and "not warm." Can anyone recommend a pretty, warm film stock that is similarly considered a classic emulsion/developer?
Click to expand...

I believe that's the old Tri-x formula... If they're talking about shots taken in the 70's
 
I've shot a bunch of HP5 but it looks a little too modern for my taste.
 
kentmere 400 in d76, pushed to 1000, I like grain

23501752240_4d82802744_b.jpg
 
I don't shoot Tri-X anymore.
It is no longer the Tri-X I once used.
It curls badly as it dries, it hasn't the look of Original Tri-X.
It is badly priced.
Ilford HP-5, is less contrasty, dries flat. Less Expensive.
Kentmere 400 is more contrasty, harsher grain,
It too dries flat and is still less expensive.
I use Kodak's HC-110.
It is actually similar to D-76.
The HP-5 is the better film, but for my pocket, use Kentmere 400.
I no longer cut my film from bulk.
Enjoy!
 
I started out shooting a lot of Tri-X in the 1980's. . . then used a lot of Ilford, particularly their Delta 400 in the 1990's . .. then finally settled on Fuji's Neopan. Loved the way grain printed with that film. Finally purchased a lot of Arista rebanded Neopan in bulk. My feeling is that $1000 of any film is a good way to get a sense of what that film will do for you and how it all works. My "loyalty" was really a lack of interest in tinkering with a winning combination. During each of these "phases" I liked knowing what a particular film would do and how to manipulate it to get it to do what I wanted.

Bottom line: if you like the Tri-X look of today's film, go for it.

I read that article linked to above, laughed out loud and almost ruined my keyboard by spitting coffee all over it. You better bring a shovel with you to dig out from all the BS in it. There is as much mis-information in it as there is good dope.

FWIW, I don't know what a "warm" film is . . . really all it is there to do is cast a shadow on your printing paper. Shadows are just the absence of light, neither warmer nor cooler than the light that makes them. It is the paper that has a color temperature, and that can be nudged a little by paper developer choice and toner. If you are scanning the film, you can add whatever "color cast" you choose in post processing, but somehow I don't think that is what the article had in mind.

Films have families of characteristic curves -- that is, typical density ranges depending on how they are exposed, and then the time, temperature, and choice of developer. Tri-X typically has a nice long curve, which means that it tolerates a little over- or under-exposure reasonably well. It was this forgiving nature that made the film a favorite of the photojournalists cited in the article, who typically did not process their own films, but had them flown to service bureaus that did all the wet work.

Moreover, you shouldn't take the article's obsession over film expiration dates too seriously. You can freeze B&W film for a decade or more and you should be fine on fog levels. Even unfrozen film is usually fine for a good long while. There are also chemical restrainers that can help tame filmbase fog, with some trade offs that aren't too difficult to deal with in the darkroom.

Finally, the "thousand yard stare" picture from the Vietnam War commonly referred to is by David Douglas Duncan, not McCullin, as claimed in the article. Search for My 20th Century by David Douglas Duncan on Amazon. The subject picture is the jacket photo and one of the iconic pictures of the 20th century.

So: Forget articles. Forget what I have written above. It is all worthless, compared with your own repeatable experiments. Buy a brick of Tri-X. Run some tests, photograph some loved ones, push some, pull some and see whether it will work for you. Then spend your $1000.
 
Samouraï said:
Thanks for that clarification, I didn't realize it has changed.
I think I'll try hp5 again.
Click to expand...

Oh, it changed a long time ago. I didn't care for the change at first, but now I am not so upset by it. I think they improved it in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Tri-X

"Tri-X has undergone a number of minor engineering changes during its long history. An early change in ASA (ISO) speed from 200 to 400, around 1960, was due to a change in the ASA standard rather than the film. In 2007, Tri-X was extensively re-engineered, receiving the new designation 400TX in place of TX or TX400, and became finer-grained."​

Frankly, I was always a big fan of Panatomic-X, but that's long gone and there's nothing like it anymore. Plus-X was also nice, but middle-of-the-road. People who objected to the most recent Tri-X change seemed to prefer the big grain of the older formulation, I think. I found that kind of chunky grain in Efke 25, now gone, sadly.
 
I'm about to test for the true speed of tri-x when shot through my main cameras. I've shot about $500 of tri-x so far this year, and it was my main film this past fall. Before that I shot exclusively Hp5. I like tri-x better.

I'm not a landscape photographer. Exposure latitude is probably the single most important factor I'm considering in selecting a favorite film. Second is grain structure. Third is price--I shoot about 10 rolls per week, a pretty expensive habit (thank god I'm not a smoker anymore).

I'll look into neopan, just bought a few rolls of Arista 400 to see how I like it.
 
Benjamin Marks said:
Finally, the "thousand yard stare" picture from the Vietnam War commonly referred to is by David Douglas Duncan, not Cullin.
Click to expand...

Hi, Benjamin. While that shot by DDD is indeed well known, probably the photo that most people think of right away in that context is very likely this one. It's the one referred to in the article and is indeed by McCullin, not DDD.


Not only that, but Don seems to have overexposed it fairly significantly--I saw the exhibition of his life's work at the Imperial War Museum a few years back, and they had a darkroom work print included with notations made on it describing the significant amount of burning that was required on various parts of the image.

But I fully agree with most of the rest of what you said--black and white films do have a characteristic look of their own, but that can be altered/enhanced significantly by choice of exposure, developer, development technique and printing.
 
I've been shooting some with Arista 100 and 400 EDU lately from Freestyle and I really like the look. Modestly priced too.

jojoman2 said:
Hi folks,

This summer I'll be buying over $1000 worth of film, and I'm curious if any of you shoot more inexpensive films like Arista EDU 400 or Kentmere 400, both of which are over a dollar cheaper per 36 ex. roll. The 100 speed Arista and Kentmere are even cheaper, though I don't shoot at iso 100 very often. I am most familiar with D76 and HC110, although I'm looking to try some rodinal at some point. Really I'm very open to experimenting with any combo.

Is the new formulation of tri-x worth continued loyalty despite rising prices? I've checked out Eastman double-x, it doesn't look much cheaper. I don't understand why a 100ft roll of ilford delta 400 is $50 bucks cheaper than a 100ft of tri-x either. I've gotten great results from delta 400--if my mp (2003 model) took reloadable cartridges I would go for that in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...
 
Hi,

You say " I've gotten great results from delta 400--if my mp (2003 model) took reloadable cartridges I would go for that in a heartbeat."

and so my question is; are you sure about that?

Regards, David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom