are you a tri-X man?

[peter_svensson]

Tri-X is nice, but I recently switched to Delta 400. The problem with Tri-X, I think, is that it loses a lot of accutance in some solvent developer. For a really sharp look, it wants an accutance developer, and that bumps up the grain. Delta 400 stays sharper in fine-grain developer, while being slightly finer. There are some shots, though, where I miss Tri-X tonality a bit. Delta 400 is much more sensitive to red, which can make skin tones a little blah.

[john_brewton]

Hi Vuk. I too just finished my first roll of Pan F+ and I'm quite pleased with the results. I'm having good luck with Delta 100 Pro also. In fact I prefer the 100 over TriX. Also trying out the Acros this week.

[beau 1664876222]

The tri-x shots are more flattering to the model, and they have the more romanticized look people often want to see in a b&w photo. The spectral response of TX gives skin tones a trademark luminosity.

 

The problem with fine-grain films on portraits is that the skin can look sort of oily or waxy. Obviously you can overcome this by paying a lot of attention to the makeup, lighting, etc.

 

So I'd say if you're doing more spontaneous shooting, stick with Tri-x - there's a little more grain but there's also that famous radiant look to the skin.

[jtk]

"beautiful girl, beautiful skin!" : immediate strong response to your Pan F... Tri X response was weak by comparison...THEN I wondered if I just preferred the composition/poses in the Pan F shots...then I reviewed and realized that wasn't it: this girl's glory is especially her dark, velvety, moist, youthful skin (YUM!)...unfortunately lost by the Tri X.

 

However, you didn't fairly compare the two films...the Tri X wasn't processed to its best advantage...we shouldn't see that much grain in a tiny image...better Tri X processing would have made the competition more fair.

 

That very first head shot is a knockout!

[billc1]

I am most of the time now and I agree with Anthony that it is sure nice that Wallgreens sells it. I develop mine with tmax devolper seems to work better with tmax devolper compared to rodinal. I also like shooting with xp2 super now.

[jonathan_reynolds]

Vuk, I've seen the images now, and I go for the Pan-F in this comparison on the grounds of their being smoother and more polished. The Tri-X images are bolder but too stark and much too grainy to be flattering. For my taste, you either need to beef up the lighting and use Pan-F with more DOF, or achieve a more subtle handling (development, scanning) of Tri-X. I don't know about scanners, but have you tried Emofin for Tri-X? I love it.

 

BTW, what's wrong with a medium-speed film like Delta 100?

[lee_shively]

I use Pan F+ in medium format. Lovely stuff...it can bring a tear to your eye it's so pretty.

 

But I use HP5+ a lot more often simply because its speed makes it more flexible.

[feli]

They make other film besides Tri-X?

 

feli

[ronald_wills]

Hi Vuc, without doing a lot of analyzing, I prefer the look of the second set of photos. I

just almost always prefer the way Tri-X handles light, regardless of the grain. When I want

less grain I just load up the old Rollei, or switch to APX 100 or Fp4.

[donald_brewster]

Nice photos. I prefer the PanF. A lady like that doesn't deserve to be grainy. ;-)

[patricks]

i prefer the 1st run, looks much slicker on this model/setting.

 

even if you seem to detest comments on your presentation (which of course is subjective) i personally find, like Peter A, the emposes dark frames a distraction. looks weird and unappealing.