Kodak Tri-X 400 vs. T-Max 400

[arjun_mehra]

<p>Same speed; same company. I know Tri-X is a much older formulation than T-Max, but I wonder how paople feel about these two emulsions, to-day? As I understand, both films were updated within the past few years.<br>

Thanks, everyone.<br>

*Is Tri-X 320 the same as Tri-X 400, but finer-grained (as a result of its lower speed)? Thanks again.</p>

[sandy_harper]

<p>T-Max is a T grain film, doesn't even compare to Tri-X.</p>

[vincent_peri]

<p>You might find this information link useful:<br>

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/bw/tMax400.jhtml</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Very different looks. Tri-X compresses highlights and shadows, gives you more contrast in the mid-tones. It has a distinctive look, and grain with character.<br>

T-MAX is very linear, so the midtones can look flat. T-MAX has great potential for zone system work, but is very demanding about precise processing, and rather demanding about exposure. The lastest T-MAX 400 (TMY-2) has grain as fine as T-MAX 100. The grain doesn't have character, and is very uniform.<br>

You can, of course, post-process T-MAX 400 to get the tonality of Tri-X, but not the grain character. Unless you're enlarging a lot, you'll need to print optically to really show Tri-X's grain in a print.<br>

Each has its place. This is reflected by both selling well.</p>

 

[willscarlett]

<p>Tri-X 320 and Tri-X 400 are not the same film at all. Tri-X 320 is only available in 120 and large format, while Tri-X 400 is available in 35mm and 120. I'm not an expert on the differences, but Tri-X 320 is more of a studio film and gives you more midtones. Many people who shoot Tri-X 320 outdoors say that it looks rather flat, compared to Tri-X 400.</p>

[bkpix]

<p>Personal take:<br>

TMY (TMax 400) is extremely sharp, not very grainy, and a little brittle. It's beautiful when you get the hang of it, but difficult to control.<br>

TX is a great general purpose film. It's less sharp, more grainy, and is much more flexible in handling bad lighting. It's difficult to ruin Tri-X, which is why it used to be the go-to film for newspapers.</p>

[lynn_washington]

<p>Proverbial stupid question: What is "T-grain film"?</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

[bkpix]

<p>T-grain = <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabular-grain_film">Tabular Grain film</a></p>

[dpbours]

<p>Great! I also wondered about the difference in T-max and Tri-x. Thanks!</p>

[guido_h]

I don't find that T-Max is too demanding about exposure. I recently overexposed a shot on T-Max 100 by 6 stops (forgot to put on the ND 64x filter) and still recovered perfectly usable detail in the highlights.

[arjun_mehra]

<p>Thanks, all. I think I'll buy a roll of each to see the differences, before I decide which to buy for what I really want to photograph (I'll have just one chance, at the event, so will have to have made up my mind).<br>

Thanks again.<br>

*Found this on-line:<br>

http://www.presetsheaven.com/wp-content/2008/12/kodak_tri-x_400_curve.jpg<br>

http://www.presetsheaven.com/wp-content/2008/12/kodak_t-max_400_auto.jpg</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I use both depending on the look I feel like getting that day. T-Max has finer grain but not the classic feel of Tri-X . Also subject matter For Women T-Max for Men Tri-X ... I am talking 120 there and in 35mm it is Tri-X all the way it just seems to push better if I need a few more stops..</p>

[willscarlett]

<p>I agree with Guido that I've never found any of the T-Max films to be difficult to process, be sensitive to proper exposure/development or just be plain brittle. Aside from the first roll of Tech Pan that I shot, which I sent out to be developed and came back severely overdeveloped and just developed in the wrong developer, I've never had trouble with any films... until I recently decided to try and tame Adox CMS 20 in Rodinal. After a few trials, I found that Rodinal, 1:200 for 14 minutes at ASA 10 works beautifully if it's an overcast day, but for brighty, sunny days, it seems you'd need to take a few minutes off that time.</p>

[arjun_mehra]

<p>Hey, can T-Max be processed in any developer the way Tri-X can be, or does it "require" its special "T-Max developer"? Thanks.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I use HC-110 Developer for my T grain films. The T-Max developer came out around the same time as the origional T-Max films and I think Kodak just put the name on it.. If you look Kodak uses D-76 to get the base lines for T-Max films.. I never liked T-Max developer much but I have a bunch I got when a store closed... it was free.</p>

[guido_h]

I use XTOL 1:1 for both TMX and TMY. I formerly used the T-Max developer but didn't like it, because grain is much more noticeable. XTOL gives virtually clean results, which I prefer for scanning.

<p>

Many different developers can be used with T-Max films. Kodak itself provides times for several of them in their specification sheets, and for others you can always try the <a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php">Massive Dev Chart</a>.

[larrydressler]

<p>TMY-2 HC-110 Dilution H.<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2578/3679160735_c54f48ed94.jpg" alt="" width="499" height="500" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2564/3679160969_23b435be15.jpg" alt="" width="494" height="500" /></p>

<p>Larger size link</p>

<p>http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2564/3679160969_99535d1ef7_o.jpg</p>

[chuck_pere]

<p>Another big difference for me is the better reciprocity characteristics of Tmax 400. If you are photographing a landscape it's much easier to find the shorter still time required.</p>

[jeff_drew4]

<p>All the above are spot-on! I would comment that after 35+ years with Tri-X I still like it and use it! TMAX 400 is wiggling its way into my life however. I used to push Tri-X to ISO1200-1600 and develop in Acufine with good & consistent results. TMAX 400 can be pushed further and developed in TMAX at ISO3200 & ISO6400 . . . So in terms of flexibility, TMAX 400 may be a better choice, but I like the journalistic quality of Tri-X at times too.<br>

Arjun, you may want to go to Kodak and download the Kodak podcast - video of an interview with John Sexton on Tmax. It's free and John elucidates on why he endorses Tmax quality. Jocelyn Bain Hogg is also interviewed for Tri-X. Again both podcasts are free and gives you some biased professional comments. . . but is that not what they do and feel passionately about? :-)<br>

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressCenter/newPodcast/podcastPro.jhtml?pq-path=11792</p>

 

[arjun_mehra]

<p>Jeff, thanks. I don't have an iPod or any Apple software. Will a "podcast" video work on (an old version of) Windows Media Player. I seem unable to view the interviews...</p>

[jeff_drew4]

<p>Itunes for Windows or Mac is a free download and will work on most PCs/Macs.<br>

http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/</p>

 

[arjun_mehra]

<p>Thanks. (Actually, it won't run on my computer [i'm not on a recent enough version of Windows], but I might watch the clips at work.)</p>

[jdrose]

<p>T-Max is actually a T-Grain film. Apples and oranges really.</p>

<p>I personally much prefer the look of Tri-X. Also, it seems like I have better luck at accurately developing Tri-X. Old habits perhaps.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>LOL I found that developing both are just as easy if you ruin the first roll.</p>

[jim_appleyard]

<p>Some further thoughts on this subject:http://www.steveanchell.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=109&func=view&catid=6&id=49</p>