Recent Run with Tri-X

Howdy folks,

 

Haven't been shooting much Kodak film lately but going into a weekend of shooting recently and being low(ish) on film I Popped into my local camera shop to see what they had. No 120 in stock but the did have some Protra and Tri-X. Picked up 4 rolls of foe latter, and to date have had one roll shot & processed. Pretty happy with the results, so I thought I'd share to see what you all have to say about these. I shoot everything at box speed, and have the lab process normally. I've been using Richard Photo Lab and they do a nice job of it. Their scans are consistently pretty good; I have them use the Noritsu scanner with the other choice (for some film stocks IIRC) being the Frontier.

 

This roll was shot using my Voigtlander R3m and I believe the Voigtlander 50mm f3.5 Heliar lens. It's been a while since I shot ny Try-X but I don't recall it being so sharp. These have a great quality to them, IMO and also generated a bit of buzz over at the Kodak Film Group on f@c3 b00k. I'd like to credit, at least partially, the amazing capabilities of the Voigtlander glass; the R3m, near as I can tell, is a pretty nice piece of equipment in its own right.

 

 

 

 

My recent experience with the reengineered tri-x has been very positive and seems better than what I remember. I have been shooting it in 35mm but have some 120 that I plan to shoot. Over the last couple of years I have posted the images on film camera week.

When I hear "lab" for black and white, my expectations are low, but those look really good!

When I hear "lab" for black and white, my expectations are low, but those look really good!

 

Thanks- AND they're probably "rezzed down" a bit from "reality", too. I got the scans, added them to Zenfolio, then posted them here so we are a few steps removed from actuality. I've been sending my film out to various labs over the past 2-3 years and my experience is that there are a lot of people (read: labs) doing pretty solid work right now.

I shot a lot of 4x5 Tri-X when it and Polaroid Type 52 had the same ISO. Sort of like wearing suspenders and a belt at the same time.

 

Much of my Tri-X 35mm work was done after I started shooting Classic Manual Cameras.

out dated roll of Tri-X - my first in years:

 

Here, you can print this out and have your very own vintage Tri-X box;)

Heck, that ain't no vintage. Real vintage had a metal screw top can in the box! I think the stuff came out in 35mm the year I was born, 1954.

Very smooth tones in those images, Ricochetrider. Of course, the current 400TX (Tri-X 400) is quite a different film from the original 400 ASA Tri-X Pan. I recall that around 2007 the emulsion was re-worked with a reduction in silver content and a lessening in visible grain. While I like the the current emulsion, (though not as much as Ilford HP5), I feel it lacks the sort of gritty "bite" I liked in the old emulsion. It's possibly more acceptable in 35mm format, but I find it a little bland in 120, where it resembles the tabular-grain T-Max, while HP5 or Arista 400 show a little more traditional cubic-grain character. Edited October 28, 2020 by rick_drawbridge

Those are really nice.

 

I've never been able to get Tri-X to look the way I wanted.

 

Here's some 2005 vintage Tri-X I processed at the weekend, from the 2005 Edinburgh G8 protests (I'm working through some old films from that time that I never got around to processing):

Semi-stand in Rodinal 100+1 (all I have for the moment), my first try at semi-stand. Negs were 'scanned' with my Fuji X-T10 and Hexanon 55/3.5 macro, using a spare enlarger neg carrier and a tablet for a light source, no real post processing, just shoved them through darktable's 'negadoctor' module.

 

Look like they'll print ok, that'll be the real test...

 

Camera was most likely my Konica Autoreflex TC, with the Hexanon 40/1.8. Start of the roll had physical and light damage, I can't remember what happened to it.

Edited October 28, 2020 by steve_gallimore|1

Steve that's a lot more like what I recall from the Tri-X I've shot. This was MF in 2019 so pretty recent

 

 

I started shooting Tri-X around 1971 when I would borrow my dad's Mamiya Sekor 1000 TL and Vivitar 85-205 zoom to take football photos in high school. Through college I probably shot a ton of it. I even ran a roll of 126 Tri-X (against advice) in an Instamatic 124. I have noticed (since I still shoot Tri-X) that there is a marked improvement. From reading old photo magazines I know that even as far back as the 1960's Kodak steadily improved it.

I would hate to speculate how many rolls of Tri X I’ve been through and have always liked it. It isn’t the best for everything but it does a lot of things well and I like the grain. Makes me want to get out an F2.

 

Rick H.

Very well done. To be honest I'm surprised at the clean results you got particularly with the engine shot, beautiful! Box speed! OK.

Heck, that ain't no vintage. Real vintage had a metal screw top can in the box!

This box is vintage, the metal can is classic

I was just shopping for Black and White 30.5meter rolls of 35mm film and noticed that in EU Kodak 400TX is twice the price of HP5+!

Single rolls 400TX also seems to be quite a bit more expensive than HP5+ as well. I don't know how the pricing is elsewhere, but are anybody in EU actually shooting 400TX (Other than a roll now and then out of curiosity)?

I still shoot a lot of Tri-X. I prefer the tonality of Plus-X (which I still have a few rolls of), and Tri-X for starker contrast. You got good results in your shots!

This box is vintage, the metal can is classic

[ATTACH=full]1362819[/ATTACH]

 

The way it was when I started. I liked the metal cans better than plastic.

I was just shopping for Black and White 30.5meter rolls of 35mm film and noticed that in EU Kodak 400TX is twice the price of HP5+!

Single rolls 400TX also seems to be quite a bit more expensive than HP5+ as well. I don't know how the pricing is elsewhere, but are anybody in EU actually shooting 400TX (Other than a roll now and then out of curiosity)?

 

A roll now and then out of curiosity is probably why I've never found something that works well for me.

 

From Fotoimpex, Tri-X (400TX) is 7€99,HP5+ is 5€84 and Fomapan 400 is 4€04. From my local shop, 8€90, 6€65 and 4€99 respectively.

 

I'd love to know what @Ricochetrider 's lab used to develop those shots though, I'm willing to pay the price if the results are there.

I miss the metal cans. Somewhere I've been a box with a couple of dozen or more of these cans with various color combinations. Kodak apparently packaged some films in other containers during the mid 1960's:

From a roll of Panatomic-X that had a 1964 expiration date.

I was just shopping for Black and White 30.5meter rolls of 35mm film and noticed that in EU Kodak 400TX is twice the price of HP5+!

Single rolls 400TX also seems to be quite a bit more expensive than HP5+ as well. I don't know how the pricing is elsewhere, but are anybody in EU actually shooting 400TX (Other than a roll now and then out of curiosity)?

 

hey it's "only" money, right? LOL What price for "art" anyway ;-0

When I started in the later 1960's. color film still came in metal cans, but black and white in paper tubes and wrapped in plastic/foil wrappers.

 

For some time, I found the paper tubes good for storing rolled-up film after developing.