Ye Old Tri-x look

[buttons_de_ridder]

I loved the 1960/70-ies Tri-x look, since the film has undergone some

changes the look has changed to and although I like the stuff, which I

use all the time, I think I might of found a way to make it resemble

the old style, anyway a style that I really like.

 

I shoot it at 800 and develop it in Rodinal 1:50 at 20 degrees for

16,5 minutes, agitating 5 times initially and twice every minute ....

The looks on the final wet print is astonishingly nice and very classic.

 

The only drawback is the 800 filmspeed, this doesn't allow much of

"shallow" photography outside, as I also love to shoot wide-open, or

near to wide open.

[jv1]

I too, love to shoot wide open and I think ISO 800 is a bit too much for that in many situations. Have you tried Lucky SHD 400 ISO B&W film, a Chinese copy of the old Tri-X formula? In addition to closer resembling the old Tri-X (and thus you can probably shoot it anywhere between 200 and 800 ISO and still get that look), it is also extremely cheap. The downside is that many people think the film base is too thin for easy handling and the lack of a thorough, good (as in modern) anti-halation layer. Personally I find neither of these downsides limiting to my photograph. I develop Lucky 400 in Rodinal. There is also a 100 ISO version, but I have no experience with that.

[jay_de_fehr]

Hi.

 

Are you getting decent shadow detail at EI 800 with high contrast, or are you losing detail on both ends of the scale?

 

Jay

[buttons_de_ridder]

Shadow detail is just the way I want it, it's not optimal, but for shots where I want optimal shadow detail I use other combinations.

 

I tend (mostly) to go to low shadow detail, I like this look. This is probably one of the niceties of the above mentioned combination. I am trying to find a good print to scan which is representative of the look I I like and the results this combination gives me.

[radu_diaconu]

Hi Buttons,

 

I'm glad the combination workd fine and I was sure you'd love that. It is now one of my favorite combos.

 

You can still shoot wide open at 800, but you have to be inside. I have a Yashica Electro and wide open at F1.7 it is gorgeous with Tri-X and Rodinal. Nice sharp grain, a bit contrasty and very easy to print.

 

Regards,

 

Radu D.

[jsc1]

Hi Buttons...

 

Have you tried adding an ND-filter, i.e. neutral density? It will lower the EV. I would be

curious to know if it maintains the "look" that you like.

[buttons_de_ridder]

Yes I have a range ND filters which I used for my "In Motion" series. I hesitate though to add another layer of glass since this will allways have an effect on the outcome.

 

I will continue with my quest to find the perfect combination. I shoot with an M series leica where shutterspeeds go no further than 1/1000. This is the only (minor) drawback with M series. But then there probably aren't to many people who allways want to shoot at 800 asa.

 

I will try the Lucky films. I just bought some Efkes today and will be testing them tomorrow. Tonight I am trying a roll of APX at 200

[al_kaplan1]

I've been asking around hoping to find a source for Lucky films here in the Miami area. It might well really be "Tri-X". Lucky is one of the Chinese companies that Kodak has either been buying outright or buying a controlling interest. They're already making Kodacolor Gold there and selling it in the U.S. for essentially 1970 prices. A return to buck and a quarter a roll Tri-X would be lovely.

[richard jepsen]

Buttons

 

The Classic Tri-X Look! If you are referring to Robert Franks book, The Americans, the look was probably achieved by pushing Tri-X one or two stops in straight D-76. That would result in low shadow detail, less sharpness and a slight increase in grain. I think you can still get the same look in the current film.

 

To record shadow detail with a diffused light source derate Tri-X to an EI of 200, soup in Rodinal 1:50 @ 21c for 12 min. The resulting grain in a 5x7 is recorded as a fine grit contributing to image sharpness at the expense of smoothness. The grain does not jump out at you but makes a different look.

[aa]

Word. I love the old Tri-X look.

 

I shoot Tri-X at 1600 more than I shoot it at 400.

I think that on a really bright day you are just going to have a hard time shooting "really wide open" on a fast lens with 1/1000th of a second....just like it is hard to shoot Tech-Pan inside at night with f16.

 

There are already some interesting ideas posted WRT to developing, but have you also considered filter combinations? A heavy red filter definitely reduces the amount of light coming in, but takes out your greys.

 

Also, I'm not sure if you print, but you might be able to overexpose at 800 and develop normally, but then try to pull out contrast with a more contrasty paper or use of filters. Digitally..there is always photoshop.

 

Lastly, to me, the Ye Old Tri-x look has some sort of slight toning, which I dont know much about (selenium, half-a-sepia).

 

Great thread!

[machts gut]

Maybe Ilford HP5+ in Rodinal is worth a try.

 

Stefan

[richard jepsen]

The Old Tri-X Look -- This month I re-printed a 1970 Tri-X image (enlarged to 5x7) which was developed in D-76 1:1. The results look similar to the current film. I understand the new Tri-X has finer grain but the tonal response seems the same as 35 years ago.

[machts gut]

@Richard,

you are reffering to Robert Frank's "The Americans" as an example for the old Tri-X look. Just yesterday I browsed through a book about Robert Frank's work (Title: "Moving Out")and found some contact prints from negs of that series. They were Plus-X! But like you, I'm also pretty sure he must have used Tri-X for a lot of his shots.

 

Stefan