Tri-x in 35mm for other than street photography

Hello,

 

I was just wondering how useful is Tri-x for landscape photography,

or portraits in 35mm?

 

I read about tri-x for street photography because it can be pushed,

and it has great latitude.

 

Ansell Adams loved tri-x, but he also used Large format cameras.

 

I hate using a Tripod and my main film which I love is FP4+ in xtol

1:3. I am finding that when I rate the fp4+ at 64 and use my red

filter. I am quite limited in the applications use fp4+ will work

without a tripod. Anyway, I am wondering if I can fill that void with

TRI-X. Does anyone have samples of great 35mm Tri-x scans, in

landscape or portraits.

 

My main developer is Xtol and I am going to mess with rodinal

somewhat.

 

Thanks

Steve<div></div>

I do a lot of "non-street" shooting with Tri-X 35mm. I use mostly D76 1:1 and I think it does very well with skin tones. I am careful not to overdevelop it. I usually use 2 1/4 for landscapes, but have used 35mm and TX for larger scenes and have had what I consider good results. I don't know about "great" TX scans, 'cause I not much good on the computer end of the process, but you can see my folders for some examples.

 

Dean

The best advice I could give you is try a roll or two. B & W films are very much a personal choice. It's what you like and what works for you.

 

I use Txp ( the new Tri-x) all the time in both 35 & 120 for mostly all of my pictures where I'm going to hand hold the camera. In 35 if you use a good prime lens and don't blow it up too much it is fine. It's excellent in 120. The film is suprisingly sharp.

 

As in any 400 speed film of this type you will see the grain once you enlarge it. To my eyes it's not objectional but each to their own.

 

Being that you already are an Ilford shooter you also should try their HP5 -400 speed film. You'll find a similar tone relationship to what you are already using.

 

If you shoot a Kodak or any other manufactures product you'll notice the difference in tone more than anything else. Txp and HP5 have a similar grain structure that is different from the Delta and T-Max families. I would also suggest you might want to use a yellow filter with the Txp and HP5 films as they can use a boost in contrast.

 

Your correct on the latitude but there is price to be paid and that is grain and image quality. Ditto for pushing. It is somewhat more tolerant on processing and is not as critical on processing time as the T grain films ( Delata & T-Max ) but it doesn't reward sloppy workers.

 

Good luck.

 

Dave

Dean,

 

I looked at your folder and the shots are great. I really liked the Tri-x images. I ordered 10 rolls of Tri-x just to see how I like it.

 

thanks for the advice

 

Steve<div></div>

I've done some good photos (I think anyway) with 35mm Tri-X. If you look at the stuff I have uploaded, the first portrait of Kelsey is TriX, as is the 'Posted' sign image. I haven't scanned anything in a long time, but I'm working solely with TriX right now, albiet in large format.

tri-x rules. I think it's the most expressive film there is, very responsive to your personal way of using it.

 

People get hung up on fine grain, etc. but lose sight of what matters -- interpreting light in a beautiful way.

I've experimented with many films and developers, and find that Tri-X developed in X-tol 1:2 gives me what I want, especially with "people shots" -- good sharpness, no objectionable grain. I was really surprised to do a side-by-side landscape comparison with FP-4 (also in X-tol 1:2) and the Tri-x gave me more fine details without a noticeable increase in grain. My developing techniques are perhaps not finely honed, but I have not found anything to match this combination.

Steve,

 

Try shooting it at 250 ASA and reduce development just a little bit (20% or so).

 

TriX looks really slick that way.

 

jmp

I like 400TX, 35 mm, developed in HC-110 at half of dilution B strength. Seems plenty smooth and the grain is fine enough I wouldn't hesitate to go 8x10.<div></div>

I love Tri-x for portriats in 35mm. I've shot at anything from 200 to 3200. Below are a few recent shots.

 

For landscape, I usually use 4x5 tri-x (Not the same emulsion as in 35mm) and develop in PMK pyro. I also love FP4+ and HP5+ in 4x5 and 5x7.

Pushes well in Acufine to 1600

In a PINCH, it can go to 3200, but absolutly NO shadow detail, and grain is huge. If I had any TMZ or Delta 3200 for this shot, I'd have used it instead.

"I looked at your folder and"...

 

Thanks, Stephen. You'll probably get along fine with TX. I'll second John Painter's comment too. Similar to my own methods, although TX does well at it's rated speed when you need it, and it pushes well when you're low on light. Rating at 250 helps the shadows IMO and dropping dev time a bit helps keep the highlights from blowing out. You will probably want to play with it a bit to find what EI and dev time works best for you. Like your fence post. Got a bunch of 'em myself, along with other "wood stuff".

 

Dean<div></div>

I've used 35mm tri-x since the 1960's. I love it especially for natural light portraits. It works well with so many developers too. With a little experimentation you can get just the "look" you want.

Do yourself a favor, and try the Fuji Noepan 400. Wonderful film. Great tonality and grain structure.

 

QLP<div></div>

Speaking of "street photography" (whatever that means), <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007yoS><u>This thread</u></a> is interesting for either entertainment value or demonstrating misplaced priorities (of which I may be equally guilty).<p>

 

I think we should be about as concerned with which film/developer is most appropriate for street photography as I am about the definition of the genre - which is practically nil.

 

Frankly, I think it'd be interesting to take up the challenge of using an ISO 25 film (or Pan F+ at EI 25). Do it old style.

I really love TriX in HC110 here is a portrait to show how it looks.<br><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1883741"><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1883741&size=sm"></a><br> Not very formal I know but you get the idea.

Stephen,

I shoot almost everything on Tri-X, but it's especially nice for

portraits. I've sold many, many 35mm Tri-X portraits over the

years. Also, Jane Bown, one of the pre-eminent portrait

photographers in England, uses Tri-X. You can read about her

here: http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column27/index.html