320 TXP and Tri X 400. Differences?

Besides differences in processing, how does 320 TXP behave compare to Tri X 400? Does it

look the same? What about pushing? Pulling? Daylight? Strobes?

 

Thanks for your help.

Dear Bernard,

 

Download the tech sheet here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

 

Note the interesting differences in the characteristic curves.

As Neal said. There is a major difference in the characteristic curve between these two films.

 

Search this forum for a wealth of information.

 

Especially note a discussion of May 12 re developing TXP320 with Rollo Pyro (ABC+) and the effect that process has on the curve.

 

Good shooting.

 

/s/ David Beal ** Memories Preserved Photography, LLC

TXP has a long toe (not very many films have long toe).

 

This compresses shadow detail.

 

Where TriX (TX) is pretty much "normal" by compairison.

 

Ken

Hi Bernard,

 

The Tri X 400 curve has a long toe, mid range and very gentle shoulder. This permits over development for speed increase without excessive contrast. It also permits great architectural interiors without undue highlight blocking.

 

TXP, 320, Tri X Professionsl has a similar toe and midrange curve, but the shoulder jumps up quite fast in order to have sharply broken, great highlights, for use in commercial subjects.

 

Lynn

As a dedicated Tri-X shooter I regular use both films. My personal favorite is 320TX in Rodinal 1:50 70F 10 minutes. Rollo Pyro is my second choice.

 

The main difference between the films is that 320TX has a slightly up swept curve. I find this feature to add that special "pop" to highlight, especially when processed in PMK or ABC+ (Rollo Pyro) to counteract lowering of highlight values. Even with the upswept curve, highlights do not block up and look wonderful.

 

320TX also has slightly higher shadow contrast when overexposed to get the toe up an out of the base thresold.

 

All in all, 320TX is a wonderful film. It performs superbly out of the studio contraty to what many folks think. Give it a side by side comparison

TXP is great for people and nudes, wonderful skin tones. I use it in Xtol 1:0, 1:1, Rodinal 1:

50, D-23, Microdol-x, etc, it all looks good, just with subtle difference with the developer.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think that Tri-X 320 is the very best black and

white film emulsion that Kodak currently makes. Now if they'd only listen to me and

remake the Panatomic-X emulsion.....

Thanks for your opinions and advice.

Jay Johnson. I'm currently struggeling with Tri-X and Rodinal. If you scan your negatives I'd very much like to see a scanned Tri-X 400 + Rodinal 1+50 photo as it looks unprocessed straight from the scanner and as it looks when you're done in PS. I'm sort of searching for proof that this combination can look good scanned (since I've failed so far)...