TriX ... TMY in drag?

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by r_david, Aug 16, 2015.

  1. I shot and developed my first roll of Tri-X in 35 years. THAT was not the Tri-X I grew up with. It looked liked TMY - both developed in full
    strength D-76.

    HP5 looks more like old Tri-X - although, I haven't shot HP5 in a couple of years.

    Has anyone else noticed this? Or am I stuck in nostalgia?
     
  2. SCL

    SCL

    Tri-X was reformulated years ago, and doesn't closely resemble what it looked like in the 1960-70s. Still a great film though.
     
  3. Don't get me wrong. Tri-X rocks! But I don't see any difference with TMAX 400. And TMAX is cheaper - quite a bit
    cheaper per 100'.
     
  4. Yup, I noticed that as well about 10 years ago.
    Tri-X now resembles 1990s T-Max 400. More
    sensitizing dye and iodide content, stronger
    residual purple base tint (whereas my older Tri-X
    negatives dried neutral steely gray), finer
    grain... good film, but not really Tri-X any
    more.

    The differences show in the same developers used
    than and now, especially HC-110 and D-76. By the
    time I began using Diafine Kodak had already
    changed Tri-X so I'm not sure how that classic
    combination should have looked.

    Alas, HP5+ isn't quite like old Tri-X either.
    Good film, more of a classic look, but not a
    substitute.

    Meanwhile, I began to prefer TMY for pushing. It suits me better at 1600 in Microphen.
     
  5. Thanks Lex. Sometimes these things are so subjective ; it's good to get another opinion. For example, my opinion of HP5.

    Let me post another question instead of high jacking my own thread.
     
  6. In 100 foot rolls, Tri-X costs about as much per foot as for 36exp rolls. I believe that isn't true for TMY, but I haven't looked so carefully.
    TMY should be T-grain, and Tri-X not T-grain, but otherwise they might not be so different.
    I first started using Diafine when I was 10 years old, after my grandfather taught me about it, and not long before I inherited most of his photography equipment. It has been my favorite over the years. In 8th grade, I did school yearbook photography with it, usually with Tri-X at EI 1200 or 1600, and available light. (The rooms had one wall of mostly windows, so a little more light than many classrooms.)
    I don't know that I ever tried to directly compare old and new, though.
     
  7. I don't buy TX any more. The look of the 70's (when I started) is long gone and you are right on the mark, hp5 is it.
     
  8. I haven't bought TX lately, I don't get the look I want which is the look I got in the 70's and 80's when I shot miles of the stuff. Nowadays it costs too damn much and I get closer to the look I want with HP-5 although it isn't quite the same either.
    Rick H.
     
  9. I mostly shoot ORWO these days and leave the kodak stuff alone. I find the UN54 (px like, in tones) and N74+ (gritty on a good day) are the grade of films I used back then. Rick, if you look into using bad processing techniques (the ones we naturally strive not to do), you can get that look back with any film.
     
  10. R David - I couldn't agree more. A fortnight ago I shot and developed my first roll of TX400 in years... For all that time I had been using mostly APX and RPX films. The TX400 was developed in home-brewed FX-15, the developer I've been using most recently. Results? Surely, it does not resemble the old TRI-X, the images being visually quite pleasing nonetheless...
    00dReF-558074584.jpg
     

Share This Page