bob_crosley Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 I've used Ilford 4x5 films exclusively the past few years, and would like to try TPX 320 sheets. The Kodak fact sheet on TPX 320 indicates that this film is well-suited to studio/flash work. Anyone have comments on this film for general landscape work? Additionally, the TPX fact sheet indicates that D76 1:1 is not recommended for large tank developement, though the D76 fact sheet recommends 12 3/4 min for TPX sheets in large tanks. Is anyone using D76 1:1 with this film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 It is not the best choice for outdoor work. Press films, such as Royal Pan, and Arrow Pan (duPont) now discontinued, were better for that use. The best bet for you would be Delta 400 or HP5+ from Ilford, as these have a more suitable characteristic curve for outdoor use. DK-50, D-61a, DK-60a, etc., are superb tank developers. D-76 is not so good. http://rmp.opusis.com/formulae/silvergel/developers/kodak_d61a.html http://rmp.opusis.com/formulae/silvergel/developers/kodak_dk60a.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_crosley Posted January 24, 2004 Author Share Posted January 24, 2004 Whoops, of course I was referring to TXP 320 sheets in the above question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_goldfarb Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Tri-X 320 sheet film is great for outdoor use. I use it as my main film for all sorts of purposes, particularly for landscapes. I process it in PMK for general use and Acufine when I need extra speed, as for handheld 4x5" photography. D-76 will also give you a classic look. HC-110 Dil. B is another popular developer for Tri-X. The new development time on the Kodak datasheet is very short, but people who use that combination seem to think that the Kodak recommendation for HC-110 is an error or misprint. Delta 400 would be an excellent film, but it doesn't come in sheet sizes, alas. Many fans of HP5+ are out there, as well. Personally, I find it a little dull, but that's a matter of taste. Try a few and see what works for you. Efke PL100 is also a nice film and very affordable, but requires somewhat more careful handling to avoid scratches. If you're not developing in trays, it should be no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce watson Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 My primary subject is landscape, and 4x5 Tri-X is all I use. I develop in XTOL 1:3 in a Jobo expert 3010 drum, and am very happy with the results. There seem to be plenty of people using D76 1:1 also getting excellent results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjmurray Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Yup, Tri-x 4x5 has been a mainstay for my landscape and fine art work. I've always used d-76 in trays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_de_fehr Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 I use TXP 320 regularly outdoors with excellent results. Works great with Xtol!<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_symchyshyn Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 IMHO... "as these have a more suitable characteristic curve for outdoor use" is nothing but making myself feel smart mumbo jumbo. It's all a matter of personal taste. There is no perfect film for anything, it's what you like. I was using TXT (old Tri-X) for years and it was working wonderfully, both in the studio AS WELL AS for outdoor work. (I also use PMK as my developer of choice) As for D76 1:1... If your time is at 12.75 mins, my guess is that the time is excessive and other problems would result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 "Joe Symchyshyn , jan 24, 2004; 08:37 p.m. IMHO... "as these have a more suitable characteristic curve for outdoor use" is nothing but making myself feel smart mumbo jumbo. It's all a matter of personal taste. There is no perfect film for anything, it's what you like." Kodak had in some of their older literarture guidelines for what films were best suited for various purposes. Kodak used to make short-toes, medium-toe, and long-toe films. TXP is a long-toed film, which Kodak indicated was best for studio lighting. Alas, the film selection is radically smaller now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_jones5 Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Certainly most B&W films can be used very successfully in most shooting situations. But help me understand something. If TXP320 does so well when used outdoors why does Kodak even bother to sell TX400 (a choice only available to photographers in the middle)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_pere Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 I've found Tri-x to have a different look (curve) then HP5. More contrast in the highlights. Midtones are a little depressed. You need to look at it and compare to the Ilford you are using. I like Tri-X for some things and HP5 for the softer look. And Tmax 400 for when long exposures are needed and wind is a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_goldfarb Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 As to why there is TX 400 for 35mm and 120, but only TXP 320 in sheet sizes (as well as 120), I suspect it may have to do with the way these films are used by consumers. If you apply the zone system or some variant of it to be sure that the scene brightness range conforms to the optimal density range of the film for your printing process, then you can use a long-toe film reliably for landscapes. People who shoot large format are more likely to work more carefully in this way, so perhaps there is not so much need or market for a more "forgiving" film like TX 400 in sheet sizes. Personally, I find Tri-X conveys a stronger sense of line than HP5+, so for me it's worth the extra effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_jones5 Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 David-you have used the term "stronger sense of line". Would you explain what you mean by that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_goldfarb Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 It's a kind of subjective thing, but Tri-X gives nicely separated shadows, and can produce delicate highlights, particularly in pyro. The midtones are clear and smooth with Tri-X, but the action is happening at the ends of the scale. By comparison, I think that films like HP5+ can get a bit mushy, or at least one might say that the midtones are more prominent. This can work well with certain kinds of subject matter and light and in certain styles--one person's "mush" is another person's "smooth gradation"--but it's not what appeals to me intuitively. Great drawings can be made with a sharp pencil and with a more rounded, blunt pencil. I think of Tri-X as a sharp pencil. The best you can do with this kind of question is invest in a few boxes of film, make some real prints using the subject matter that you photograph and the process you use, and make your own judgments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_de_fehr Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 David's comments and observations seem to be in line with my own. Though we opt for different materials, (I prefer HP5+ to Tri-X) we do so for the reasons he's outlined. I shoot portraits in carefully chosen lighting to emphasise the midtones. I get the kind of prints I like from HP5+ developed in ABC Pyro for contact printing. I also agree with the poster who pointed out that most films can be made to work well in most situations if handled appropriately. One could reverse the argument by suggesting that Tri-X 400 is not appropriate for studio work, but I suspect there's too much history of its use in that application for that argument to gain much traction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 1. Kodak has trimmed down the range of films available in sheets. A. Ektapan (earlier, Portrait Pan) was intended for portrait work. B. Royal Pan (ASA 400) was intended for general outdoor work, including press. It had a curve similar similar to Tri-X Pan 35mm. C. Super-Panchro Press Type B, an older emulsion discontinued in the 70's, was also a press film. D. Super XX was again a film designed for outdoor work. E. Plus-X Pro and Tri-X Pro were intended for studio work. duPont and Ansco had similar ranges of films. 2. Many of these films were not so specialized that they could not be used in applications other than that for which they were originally intended and designed. Rather, these films produced ideal results when they were so used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_symchyshyn Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Hans, You noted... "Rather, these films produced ideal results when they were so used." I guess my point is just because Kodak or Agfa or Ilford or I say that this film is great for this, doesn't really matter at all to YOU. It's all relative. After all... What does ideal results even mean when you're talking about interpretation. The coloured objects that I photograph in black and white aren't exactly being represented exactly as they appear in "real" life. Even colour films have different palettes - but who shoots colour anyway... ;) I guess what I'm saying is that just because it says portrait on the box, or some technician thinks this film will shoot landscapes well... in the end it's YOU who need to find YOUR ideal combination. Buy some film, get off the net, shoot, develop, print, see if you like it... And go from there... joe :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Joe Symchyshyn , jan 25, 2004; 07:41 p.m. Hans, You noted... Hans: "<Rather, these films produced ideal results when they were so used.>" Joe Symchyshyn: "I guess my point is just because Kodak or Agfa or Ilford or I say that this film is great for this, doesn't really matter at all to YOU. It's all relative." Hans: Not so fast. There are criteria that are accepted in various fields (portrature, commercial, press etc.) that demand slight differences in films. There are photographic-scientific reasons why the films were designed the way they were. Outdoors, more flare is inevitable, first from the sky, which is much brighter than the foreground, and from light striking the bellows on the inside of the camera, especially when using swings and tilts, etc. This inevitably means that shadow contrast will be reduced. Using a film with a short toe minimizes the effect of flare and helps to preserve shadow separation under such conditions of use. This was also true for press photographers, who used flash and needed more latitude, which a press film provides. Just the opposite is desirable in studio work, where flare is not as much of a problem, and thus neither is shadow separation. Commercial workers though, generally preferred more sparkle in the highlights than 'press' films provided, and thus films such as Tri-X Pro were formulated according to those criteria. Portrait workers preferred another kind of negative from the other two, and so specific films were designed with their needs in mind. All of this is discussed in quite explicit detail in Kodak literature of the time. Joe Symchyshyn: "After all... What does ideal results even mean when you're talking about interpretation." There are generally 'desireable' and 'undesirable' differences between films used under various conditions, as I have already outlined. The films previously available in a wide variety were each specialized tools, each best suited to specific kinds of work. The trouble is that the demand for sheet film is greatly diminished, and the work that used to be done on sheet film is no longer being done that way anymore, so the carefully-constructed scheme of films is essentially defunct. You simply were not around when this was current, so you are unaware of it. Joe Symchyshyn: "The coloured objects that I photograph in black and white aren't exactly being represented exactly as they appear in "real" life. Even colour films have different palettes - but who shoots colour anyway... ;)" Hans: Filters can be used to 'correct' rendition or to exaggerate it. This is an entirely separate issue. Joe Symchyshyn: "I guess what I'm saying is that just because it says portrait on the box, or some technician thinks this film will shoot landscapes well... in the end it's YOU who need to find YOUR ideal combination." Hans: Only if you do not understand WHY those films were designed the way they were. The 'technician' is not doing anything but adapting the films to the KNOWN conditions under which certain kinds of photography are conducted. These films were carefully adapted to the real needs of customers, not ex nihilo. Kodak had studios at Rochester, run by real photographers, in which they tested films under various studio and location conditions. Joe Symchyshyn: "Buy some film, get off the net, shoot, develop, print, see if you like it... And go from there..." I do. All the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_goldfarb Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 The idea that flare is somehow more of an issue indoors or outdoors strikes me as a red herring, as is the idea that somehow choice of film should compensate for a flare problem. Any time you have light sources close to the camera, as in the studio, flare is an issue, and you control it with flags, a lens hood or ideally a compendium shade. With large format lenses at portrait and still life subject distances, bellows flare is a much greater issue in the studio than it is for landscapes, where the focus tends to be near infinity (putting more of the image circle on the film, and having less non-image light spill over), and camera movements are actually relatively small. In either case, the compendium shade is the ideal tool for restricting the image circle to reduce bellows flare. Trying to solve the problem of flare by choosing one film or another strikes my as treating the symptoms instead of the disease. Super-XX was a popular landscape film because of its spectral sensitivity range that produced great skies (former users have written), because it had a long straight-line curve, and because it had a huge density range could be adapted to varying lighting conditions, allowing expansions of four stops for very flat lighting conditions. Films for the studio don't need this kind of flexibility, because contrast can be controlled by controlling the light, but flare isn't really an issue in either case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 David: "Trying to solve the problem of flare by choosing one film or another strikes my as treating the symptoms instead of the disease." Hans: This was Kodak's analyis, and can be found in their literature on professional films from the 1960's. It is pretty clear that they designed films with flare conditions as a major criterion, as they went into considerable detail about it, even mentioning the flare from the bellows as a factor. I did not make that up. HB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rothelle Posted January 30, 2004 Share Posted January 30, 2004 Tri-X 320 is a great film. I rate it at ISO 200 and develop it in Microdol-X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_crosley Posted January 30, 2004 Author Share Posted January 30, 2004 Thanks to all for your informed and entertaining responses. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now