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

I might add that I was once a Tri-X adherent, but I've not used it since about 1978 or so (I switched to color film then). I also use Ilford and it is incredible in all respects - all versions - not all that cheap, but worth it and great variety.

David Murphy said:
I've been shooting some with Arista 100 and 400 EDU lately from Freestyle and I really like the look. Modestly priced too.
Click to expand...
 
leicapixie said:
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!
Click to expand...

hp5+ and id-11 replaced tri-x and d-76 for me, for the reasons stated above. readily available, reasonable price and the reduction in contrast makes it scan friendly.
 
Speaking about budgetary film, going to spend 1K$ and buying as 36 rolls?
Is this one called axomoron or similar in English?

I stoped buying Kodak and using Ilfor and Kentmere. In bulks, not rolls.
Kentmere 400 is great as 200 film, HP5+ is great at 1600.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Speaking about budgetary film, going to spend 1K$ and buying as 36 rolls?
Is this one called axomoron or similar in English?

I stoped buying Kodak and using Ilfor and Kentmere. In bulks, not rolls.
Kentmere 400 is great as 200 film, HP5+ is great at 1600.
Click to expand...



My camera isn't compatible, as far as I've been told, with reload able cartridges. New mp model.
 
Afaik, it's compatible with probably every reloadable cassette OTHER THAN Ixmoo. I have an MP as well and while I rarely use bulk loaded film in it, reused brass capped Ilford cassettes work fine. Ixmoo see use in the M6 if I go bulk.
 
I shoot XXX because it's my old friend. It's expensive but really not that much more. Interchangeably I shoot Eastman 5222 XX, I prefer the tonality of the XX. It's more of a gritty late 1950s Kodak emulsion that I can't get any other way. And it costs less than Tri-X in bulk. It used to be something that you could pick up as scraps from the Hollywood cutting room floor, but not any more. I expose Tri-X and Eastman XX exactly the same and often develop the exposed rolls together in the same tank. Works for me. :)
 
Tri x

Tri x

For some reason , Kodak prices their bulk film at close to the price of it packaged in cassettes ,
So the savings are minimal at best .
Used to cost 1/2 in bulk .
So any other choice in bulk looks like a deal
If you are going to switch brands .
Make sure you buy the film well in advance of your trip ,
Expose film under every possible lighting condition , and test process at varying times in your developer of choice to get a feel for it before departing your home .
I made the mistake of buying some cheap Agfa b&w film in 1980 before traveling , it was very high contrast , lacked shadow detail (over rated Asa )
And in general perhaps 10% of my negs were printable .
I'll never get that that part of my trip back .
The ektachromes from that trip are still some of the best .

Tri x has always treated me well , and d-76 1:1 was the best working situation I had .
If you have a film and developer that works well for you
STICK WITH WHAT YOU KNOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Film is film. For decades I shot only Tri-X, but a couple of years ago I started jumping around, just to see if I was making an expensive mistake. Lately I've been shooting Tmax400 in one camera, Ultrafine Extreme 400 in another, and really, I get pictures with any of them, and have no disasters. I'm much fussier about developers, and there, after a lot of jumping around, it's back to D76 all the way. For me, I'm convinced the look I'm after is the D76 look, not the Tri-X look.

We can all tell you what we thing, but you won't know what you like until you try some other things to find out, yourself. If any of those films were utter trash, their companies wouldn't sell enough to keep making them.
 
leicapixie said:
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.
The HP-5 is the better film,

Enjoy!
Click to expand...

For about 20 years Tri-x is all I shot in 35mm. I shot on average 400 ft a month. The formulation at that time was what I use as the standard for other 400 films. Unfortunately and for what reason I don't know Kodak reformulated it and IMO it stinks. I find I have to rate it at 250 and it doesn't do well in the modified developer I used for years with the original. Also I agree it doesn't respond or look anything like the original.

I'm a huge fan of Fuji Neopan 400 and working my way through a stock I bought several years ago. I bought a huge quantity and a freezer to stick it in. When that's depleted I'll either go to HP-5 or Delta 100. I like both a lot. 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've had excellent results shooting under extreme contrast conditions and over exposing 2 stops and pulling development to compensate. Delta can yield fantastic negs under terrible conditions if you know how to handle it.

HP-5 is said to be like TX and I'll say it's about as close as you can get but its not really like old TX. It pushes very well in Acufine and is a nice all around old school film.

When my Fuji is gone I'll have to shoot both Delta and HP5 side by side and then make a decision. I do currently shoot some HP5 when I need to push.

Kentmere I've tried but can't say I'm a fan. Its grainy and contrast imo and just don't like the tonality.
 
People who like how Tri-X look will pay whatever it costs to shoot it, it's a preference. Honestly I'm not too crazy about it, it curls like crazy, it's annoying to print and scan.

If you're planning on shooting a lot, buying 36 exposure cartridges isn't a great idea, they take up space, they weigh a lot and they're more expensive than bulk
 
The advantage I find in Kodak TRIX/TMAX and Ilford HP5+/Delta400 films is that they push more convincingly than other films in the ISO 400 range. They are costlier but they are also consistent products. You buy a roll, you know what's in there batch after batch after batch. No surprises. Films in the ISO 100 range are easier to get right in my experience. They may be nuanced differently but they are all very nice. If you find some opportunity to shoot in plenty/contrasty light, don't forego the opportunity to shoot some medium slow film, you'll be surprised pleasantly I think, even from lower cost options in the ISO100 range.


.
 
I'm a big fan of Tri-X in 120. Its got a lot of exposure latitude and minimal grain.

I like Tri-X in 135 for its flexibility, but I have a preference for TMax in that format.
 
telenous said:
The advantage I find in Kodak TRIX/TMAX and Ilford HP5+/Delta400 films is that they push more convincingly than other films in the ISO 400 range. They are costlier but they are also consistent products. You buy a roll, you know what's in there batch after batch after batch. No surprises. Films in the ISO 100 range are easier to get right in my experience. They may be nuanced differently but they are all very nice. If you find some opportunity to shoot in plenty/contrasty light, don't forego the opportunity to shoot some medium slow film, you'll be surprised pleasantly I think, even from lower cost options in the ISO100 range. .
Click to expand...
+1M Medium speed films free so much.
 
Where did you find Delta 400 at that price?

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