New Tri-X v. TMY

[james_ogara1]

Do people who have used both have a reasoned opinion on the relative

merits? I cut my teeth on Tri-X but when I got back into photography

a few years ago I started using TMY because it was newer and, if

memory serves, cheaper at B&H. I've been pleased with it (street

photography here and overseas, developed in HC-110 dilution E, printed

on an enlarger at 8 x 10 or occasionally scanned). Now I see Tri-X

has been reformulated.

 

Please no answers saying a) shoot both and decide which YOU think is

better or b) if it works for you keep using it. Also, I know TMY is

T-grain and have heard the conspiracy theories about TMY being

designed to use less silver.

 

Thanks much....

[alan_gage]

"Please no answers saying a) shoot both and decide which YOU think is better or b) if it works for you keep using it."

 

O.K.

 

Alan

[al_divenuti]

James...

 

After batting this one around for a couple of years I think most people finally agree that Tri-X pretty much maintains the look it has had for 50 years. It may be slightly finer grained than in the past. Some say that Tri-X is now finger grained than TMY. I don't go quite that far, but TMY's grain, IMO, can be pretty gritty and distracting.

 

I prefer the Tri-X look over TMY and use it pretty much exclusively for my hand-held 35mm work.

 

TMY has less silver than, say Tri-X, that is a fact. But silver isn't everything - image quality is and that remains subjective.

 

So I'll cut to the chase now - if I were using film for street photography I'd choose Tri-X every time. It has much better exposure latitude and I assume that you rarely have time to make sophisticated exposure compensation decisions before snapping the shutter in your street photo work.

 

So if this decision is left up to me - I'd dump TMY and use Tri-X.

 

But it isn't up to me and your scorn for "a)" doesn't change the fact that it is the correct recommendation in this type of situation.

[frank.schifano]

James:

 

A bit of history as I've heard it first. When TMY was introduced there was some talk about Tri-X being discontinued. A lot of photographers complained, and Tri-X was not dropped. It has been reformulated, but it is still the Tri-X we've grown to know and love. For all practical purposes, the processing times are the same and the results are the same, though now the grain is a bit finer than it was in the old formulation.

 

 

I've used both films and I must say that for general use under ordinary conditions I prefer Tri-X over TMY for several reasons. With normal exposure and development, Tri-X shows better separation in the shadow areas. The grain pattern of Tri-X is easier on my eyes than the grain pattern of TMY. Tri-X respons more gently to adjusments in processing times, making it easy to adjust the negative's contrast over a wider range. Finally, Tri-X handles over exposure easily. TMY is not so happy with overdoses of light as the highlights lose detail, though your shadow detail will be better.

 

TMY has it's place when the lighting conditions are flat and there is very little of it. In such a situation, TMY responds very well to push processing. Rate it at EI 1600, develop in in XTOL, and it will do very well. Tri-X rated at EI 1260 to 1600 will also do well when developed in Diafine, but is best used when there is more contrast in the scene.

[nathan_dandar]

I don't like TMY or TMX really. Their exposure latitude and tonality bother me. I don't like TMY's grain either. Photos from the t-grain films tend to look more flat and dreary to me as well. I've stuck to Tri-X for its exposure and processing forgiveness, grain and overall tonality and look. Lovely. My next order from B&H will be another 100' roll of it.

[rolfe_tessem]

I believe the major change made to the "new" Tri-X was to change the backing

formulation. Within the past year, there was an article in Photo Techniques by the

inventors of Xtol which claims that the new Tri-X now has finer grain than TMY. Because of

the authors' extensive background with B&W film research at Kodak, I'm inclined to believe

their results.

[jim_appleyard]

I've never been happy with the tonality of the T-grained film and I've souped them all in a good many devs. I went back to conventional films because the T-grains were flat and wimpy in tonality.

 

Here's how I look at it: a mounted and framed photo will scream TONALITY at you from across the room. Grain can only scream from 6 inches or so.

[scott_eaton]

Personal preference, but count me in the Tri-X over TMY/TMX club. More density range and no compromises.

[daniel_smith6]

"Some say that Tri-X is now finger grained than TMY. I don't go quite that far"

 

But the independent testing done & published in Photo Techniques mag does go that far. Sylvia Zawadski said they repeated their tests a number of times because the results were such a surprise to them that they thought they might have made a mistake somewhere. Nope, TriX is now a bit finer grained than the TMax 400.

[StuartMoxham]

For me I go with TriX over Tmax400. I personaly just like the look of TriX better. I have shot a lot of Tmax400 and developed it in D76 1:0 and I got good results that I was happy with but I just find TriX looks better with a much nicer grain pattern.

[stefan_kahlert2]

With respect to the grain of TMY beeing coarser han that of current Tri-X I recommend to set up your own test, develope both to the same CI and compare the grain in areas of equal densitity side by side. On the background of the article cited above you may be in for a surprise (or no surprise depending on your expectations and experience with both films).

 

Stefan

[james_ogara1]

Thanks all these comments are really helpful. I think I'll keep using TMY for applications where the lighting is flat, e.g., press conferences (since I have ~50 rolls in the fridge), and switch to Tri-X for street shooting.

[al_divenuti]

>>Nope, TriX is now a bit finer grained than the TMax 400

 

We need to rephrase that conclusion: Tri-X got better and TMY appeared to get a whole lot worse.

 

I've read that article and I know they stated that RMS granularity dropped from 17 to 12 for Tri-X and increased from 10 to 16 for TMY. 12 vs. 16 is a pretty substantial difference and it would be evident in even a moderate size enlargement.

 

Since that article I've seen lots of 8X10 work from 135 in both TMY and Tri-X in my community darkroom. The TMY stuff that isn't over-developed is markedly finer-grained than the Tri-X. A scientific analysis? Not really, but I did ask some of the TMY and Tri-X folks if I could look at some of the negs. under my Leica loupe. The TMY still wins for grain size compared to the Tri-X and nothing is likely to convince me otherwise.

 

I can't explain S. Zawadski et. al's results other than to say that they were looking at early production batches of the revised films. Maybe the mistakes weren't theirs, but those of Kodak instead.

[al_kaplan1]

I've been shooting and souping Tri-X since 1961. Every few years, amidst great hype, they announce "New, Improved!", sometimes even putting it ON THE BOX! Over the years it has gotten a bit finer grained but for any given upgrade, including the latest one, you'd be hard pressed to notice any significant change by looking at a random assortment of prints.

 

Regardless of what the official hype was regarding T-grain films when they first came out, plain and simple it was a way to cut down on silver useage at a time of soaring silver prices. When the digital revolution swept through the printing and copying industries suddenly silver demand plummetted, the prices crashed, and Kodak, Ilford, and others were left holding the bag ~ essentially a duplicate line of second rate low-silver films. Now at last they're putting some attention back into their normal films. Enjoy and hope it lasts.

[jtdnyc]

For street shooting at box speed, I prefer Tri X to TMY because of the tonality. TMY is simply too hot.

 

However, I have found one application for which TMY is hard to beat. I once mistakenly exposed TMY at 100 while shooting a portrait. Not realizing my mistake immediately, I developed the film normally. The resulting negatives were the densest I have ever produced but, when printed, yielded the best tonality I have ever achieved in a portrait. The negatives themselves may have been grainy, but prints on grade 00 paper didn't show any noticeable graininess at 8x10. Presumably there was also some loss in acutance, but if there was, it did no harm to the portrait.

 

On the downside, these negatives require extremely long printing times and are too dense for easy scanning.

 

I now consider TMY shot at 100 and developed normally to be a special technique for use when tonality is more important than any other visual characteristic and the negative is to be printed optically and a very soft grade of paper is available.

[jay_de_fehr]

Some of the most beautiful prints I've ever seen were contact printed from TMY negatives on Azo. The arguments that claim TMY has poor tonality, or density range, do not hold up when viewing these fine prints. Wether or not TMY is grainier than Tri-X is hard to tell by contact prints. My own results with TMY in 120 and 35mm do not compare to the LF contact prints, and the grain has been very apparent in even 5x7 enlargements from 35mm negs, but almost invisible in 8x10 enlargements from 645 negs, so there's more than math at work in these disparities.<div></div>

[todd_phillips1]

Ditto, Tri-X all the way. TMY is way too fussy in processing. Temp and times have to be exact. Tri-X gives a lot of lee-way. IMO, you can't beat Tri-X for an all around B&W film.

[al_divenuti]

Very good point (and even better photo!) from Jay...

 

I won't disparage TMY as a film on the whole, just maintain it probably isn't the best film for my applications or street photography. This doesn't mean that you can't make it work for you, but since I've found Tri-X I, for one, don't have the inclination to try.

 

Lots of folks love TMY and I find they tend to be those doing more disciplined fine art photography, such as platinum printing.

 

As for the poster that provided the anecdote about the accidental 100 rating - I know folks who routinely rate TMY at around 200 or even 160 noting that TMY isn't forgiving to underexposure. Some of these folks maintain that if you just bypass the TMY toe (such as it is) your shadow separation is great and it behaves more or less like any other film. No comment, as I haven't tried this approach...

[lex_jenkins]

Tri-X has been a lifelong favorite for normal use and pushing so that was an easy choice.

 

However I did not, at first, like TMY. In 35mm at its nominal speed the grain was tight but coarse, gritty and generally unpleasant.

 

However I experimented some more and discovered that it pushes very well in Microphen. At 1600 it produces a distinctively different flavor from Tri-X at 1600, so I like both. And the gritty, tight grain that I disliked at the nominal speed seems to retain resolution when pushed. TMY at 1600 in Microphen has surprisingly fine grain and good midtones with well controlled highlights and some shadow detail.

 

FWIW, I see little or no difference between the "old" and "new" Tri-X so my development times and methods have remained essentially the same.

 

As for T-Max films, the only accomodation I give is to use a different batch of fixer because something in T-Max films kills rapid fixer more quickly than films like Tri-X, FP4+, Pan F+, Plus-X, HP5+ and others.

[robert_grasing]

I also read that article in PT regarding the increased graininess of

the new TMAX 400. But I've seen little or no change. I found a roll

of the old version in the fridge so I processed it together with a

new roll, same time, same developer (Fujidol-E, an ascorbic acid+

phenidone type). The grain in the negatives under a 20X loupe and in

8X prints looks the same. And it is clearly finer grained than Tri-X,

although it`s not a great difference.

[lol1]

I think there may be an advantage to TMY that has been overlooked -- its tonal response. I believe that both TMX & TMY give a more natural tonal response than the conventional films such as Tri-X i.e. they are less sensitive to blue light, which means that you can use them without a yellow filter, effectively increasing your film speed by about a stop (assuming you normally use a medium yellow filter). As for gain, I find that TMY has a lot less grain than the old Tri-X (haven't tried the new one) and although it does look quite gritty it is nice and sharp, as if you had developed a medium speed conventional film in an acutance developer.

[jon_porter1]

Aside from the name change, there haven't been any changes made to TMY. But I still

think it's slightly, but not significantly, finer grained than the new Tri-X. But I prefer the

results I get with Tri-X, so that's my choice, developed in HC-110 1:32.

[everheul]

I prefer Tri-x to TMY, except for when I am shooting night time shots and want better (shorter) reciprocity.

[olliesteiner]

My preference is for new Tri-X (400TX) developed in Rodinal 1+25.<div></div>

[Rob F.]

TMY seems to work well for subjects having a wide luminance range. But I always thought it looked a little flat with more ordinary scenes. I found myself overdeveloping, trying to get more snap. But then the highlights were blocked. I have better luck with Tri-X, and also with Ilford Delta Pro 400.