Kodak Tri X films

[eric_mogren]

<p>I would like some input regarding the difference you find between Kodak Tri X 100 and Tri X 400, aside from the film speed.</p>

<p>I am new to medium format/120 film and am looking for a good, "old school" film. I used this film in 35mm occasionally years ago, but I can't remember much about it. I shot color for decades, and I remember that the slower films always produced better -- richer, more saturated, simply more beautiful -- results for me, although the slower film speeds made taking some images more difficult. (Kodachrome 25 was my all-time favorite film.) Does the 100 speed film produce noticeably richer images than the 400, so as to make it worth the trouble of a slower film? What is your experience using the two films? Do you recommend any other films besides these?</p>

<p>I will not be processing my own film (yet), and am most likely to be shooting outdoors. I want to find a versatile, "hobbiest" film. I am prompted to this inquiry because I am planning a trip to Portugal in a few weeks, and am taking my new/old Rolleicord V with me to shoot wonderful street scenes, gardens, etc. I will not have a tripod.</p>

<p>Thanks for your help to this B and W newbie!</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p> </p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I've never heard of tri-x at anything but ISO/ASA 400. Sure you aren't thinking of TMAX? I guess you could consider plus-x at ISO 125 as kind of the low speed Tri-X.</p>

<p>Tri-X is definitely old school, though they reformulated it not too long ago. Still think it's a pretty great film, at least in 35mm.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>David; what I used back in grade school in 4H club was Tri-X with an asa of 200 for our clubs speed graphic. It was WW2 war surplus film; out of date; free stuff donated to the club. There was 35mm or roll film yet; in 35mm it was Super-XX. Tri-x later came out in roll film in 1954 at about 200 speed. </p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I was born in 57, so I certainly didn't start using Tri-X till about 1972. By that time it was ASA 400, though we pushed it to 1200 routinely. That was for yearbook work.</p>

[tim gray]

<p>Are you comparing Tri-X 400 to T-Max 400 or Tri-X 320? 320 is being discontinued in 120, so I wouldn't really bother learning how to use it now. Tri-X 400 is a great traditional film and is very flexible. T-Max 400 was recently upgraded and is a new tech film with tabular grains. Supposed to be dynamite, but is more sensitive to processing than Tri-X is (from what I understand). </p>

<p>Actually, reading your post, you mention a 100 speed film. T-Max 100? If you want an 'old school' look around that speed, go for Plus-X. The T-Max's will be finer grained than the equivalent speed traditional film (Tri-X/Plus-X). </p>

[eric_mogren]

<p>It is likely that I confused two different kinds of film -- ah, well, another newbie mistake...</p>

<p>So, what is the difference between the Plus-X and Tri-X? I am confused.... And which do you find more pleasurable to use?</p>

<p>So, yes... perhaps I should re-formulate my question: I know that the 400 speed film has been around for maybe fifty years and was/is a standard classic. But is there another film that you can recommend that will deliver that old-school feel, and is equally tolerant of exposure and processing?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Eric -</p>

<p>Tri-X is a faster (higher native ISO / ASA) film then Plus - X - Like some others I started shooting in in High School for my yearbooks. We routinely would push it to 1600 and on occassions even to 3200. Plus - X was a slower (lower ASA/ISO) film - which for reasons that I still can't explain - we never tried to push even to 400. (probably because we had bulk rolls of Tri-X laying around.</p>

<p>We would use Tri-X at 400 for most (90%) of our shots. 5% were done with push processing and 5% were done on Plus - X - at 125. </p>

<p>The differences that I saw (some may be due to our processing) were:<br>

Tri-x - Good overall tone, nice balance between highlights and shadows, nice contrast. Just a good general purpose film.</p>

<p>Plus-x - Great grain behavior - we used Plus - x when we knew we needed 8x10's or larger. Also for team photos and for our Dedication page - Anytime we wanted pure blacks and white whites and lighting was a concern we used Plus-X.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[tim gray]

<p>Plus-X is ISO 125, Tri-X is ISO 400. I tend to shoot a lot more Tri-X than Plus-X, but that's just because of the situations I shoot in. If you shoot primarily during the day in good light, or use a tripod a lot, you might like Plus-X more as it is finer grained. Both look very nice.</p>

<p>I like to think of Plus-X and Tri-X as a pair, and T-Max 100 and 400 as another pair. The first are traditional films, the second are T-grain films. If you like Tri-X 400, but want a slower speed film with a bit finer grain, try Plus-X. I've not shot it yet, but from looking at the tech pubs, T-Max 400 (TMY) has about the same amount of grain as Plus-X, which is impressive considering it's 2 stops faster. Tri-X will be noticeably grainier. And T-Max 100 (TMY) is very fine grained. I've heard that the T-Max's are more particular about development, but I've had zero problems developing T-Max 3200. Then again, I'm a scientist, and I'm pretty consistent in my developing procedures. Also, there might be differences between how each of the four films responds to different colors which can affect the final image.</p>

<p>The T-Max's also have better reciprocity characteristics if you are doing long exposure. If you are doing exposures of a couple minutes, T-Max 100 will probably end up being the fastest film, followed by TMY. Tri-X and Plus-X will be considerable slower.</p>

<p>If you want fine grain, go with the T-Max's. For smaller prints (5x7ish), I'd be surprised if I could tell the difference between any of these four films. </p>

[christopher_m]

<p>I'd stick to Tri-X. You are going using 120 film, so the grain of a 400 film doesn't really factor, unless your enlargements get to 16"x20" or something ridiculously big like that. The extra 2 stops of Tri-X is nice, especially with the f/3.5 lens.<br>

<a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2533/4368312069_463a049ae9_b.jpg">Here is an example of 120 Tri-X </a>at f/3.5 on my Rolleiflex automat, that I developed in D76 1:1. I can't see any grain.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_mogren]

<p>Christopher:<br>

By "extra 2 stops" do you mean that I can safely over or under expose the film by two<em> full</em> stops and still have reasonable images? In my old days of shooting Kodachrome, I routinely shot the film a half stop off the meter reading (half stop up -- slightly underexposed). Is that something I can/should do with the Tri X? Or will make any real difference?</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>OK, this is easy and so not confusing. Kodak currently markets 2 medium speed and 2 fast B&W films in 120 roll film and 35 mm formats. They are, with a description of each, as follows:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Plus-X (125PX) - A medium speed film, ISO125. Very fine grain with a definite toe and shoulder. "Old school" film technology, ie not T-grain anything. It's a film that lots of us grew up using and can produce beautiful prints. I have nothing bad to say about this film, and I use quite a bit of it when the light permits it. </li>

<li>TMax 100 (100TMax) - Another medium speed film with much finer grain than Plus-X, a very short toe, a long straight line curve through the middle tones, and a shouldering off in the highlights that's way past what you're able to print on most papers. Some people don't like it because they think it looks funny - almost like video capture. Still others don't like it because they think it's too unforgiving of errors. True, the film demands a little more care with exposure and development. Small variations in exposure and development that would go almost unnoticed in older style films, will show with this film, but you will be rewarded with some of the smoothest looking prints you've ever seen if you handle it right.</li>

<li>Tri-X 400 (400TX) - A fast, ISO 400 film with lots of latitude. Push it, Pull it, abuse it any which way you like and you'll get an image that will print reasonably well. It was at one time the darling of the photojournalists because it would deliver the goods under very adverse lighting conditions. It's a great film to learn on, or maybe not. It doesn't really care if you're sloppy or careful.</li>

<li>TMax 400 (400TMax) - A fast, ISO 400 film very much like it's slower cousin 100TMax. Short toe, long straight line through the middle, and no shouldering off in the highlights until you're way past what can be captured on a piece of enlarging paper. Grain is extremely fine for a film of this speed, on par with the almost two stop slower Plus-X. Again, this film demands a bit more care than its old school cousin Tri-X, but it's really really nice when you get it right. It will hold shadow detail that you won't get with Tri-X and still show delicately detailed highlights.</li>

</ul>

<p>For the situation you describe, I'd stick with Tri-X. The film is capable, and will produce beautiful images under adverse conditions. You don't want a slower film unless you have plenty of light to work with. A faster film will allow you to use a faster shutter speed and reducing the need for a tripod. The camera you're using is old and the shutter may be a bit off. That won't matter too much if you're using Tri-X. The TMax films, like I said, are more exacting in their requirements.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

No by extra 2 stops he meant that plus x is 125 ISO where Tri-X was 400. Every time you double the ISO that is one stop. So 125 - 250 - 500 is about 400 so 2 stops. So if you metered with 125 and found you were shooting at 1/60 at f/5.6 then with TriX it would be about 1/60 at f/11 or maybe f/9'ish.

[christopher_m]

<p>Yes, what David said.</p>

<p>If you have 400 speed film and the f/3.5 lens, you can safely hand hold (at 1/60) and in less light, such as after sunset, or in brightly light interiors such as a museum. With 100 speed film and your Rollei, you can only hand hold outdoors. Read this if you haven't: <a href="http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm">http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm</a></p>

<p>With 35mm film, the difference in grain between 125 and 400 film can be more pronounced so the film speed is a consideration. Because the surface area of 120 film is over 4 times larger than 35mm, the effect of the grain on normal size photos is not a factor. You won't be able to see any grain in a 12x12 photo of Tri-X or a 12x12 photo of Plus-X. Since grain isn't a factor, then the slower speed film looses its advantage.</p>

<p>Btw, I would just shoot the film at 400.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_mogren]

<p>Wow. This is why I love this site. I am always impressed by the prompt and helpful replies. Thanks for all your help! Tri X 400 it is!</p>

<p>Best to you all.<br>

Eric</p>

[james_sampayan]

<p>Good deal Eric. We will keep an eye out for your post of pics when you return from Portugal :)</p>

[eric_mogren]

<p>Here is a sample of a test roll of Tri X 400 I shot recently (I was checking out shutter speeds and film transport on, as one website called it, my "German light-tank" of a camera). It is a relatively low-quality scan...</p>

<p>http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy299/ericmogren/08960008.jpg</p>

[lovcom_photo]

<blockquote>

<p>Christopher M wrote: "If you have 400 speed film and the f/3.5 lens, you can safely hand hold (at 1/60) and in less light, such as after sunset, or in brightly light interiors such as a museum."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not so fast Christopher....you have to factor in focal length too, not just f-stop on the lens, and ISO. For example, you can hand hold a 24mm wide angle at F3.5 using ISO 400 outside but probably not a 600mm lens at same F-stop & ISO.</p>

[christopher_m]

<p>"Not so fast Christopher....you have to factor in focal length too, not just f-stop on the lens, and ISO. For example, you can hand hold a 24mm wide angle at F3.5 using ISO 400 outside but probably not a 600mm lens at same F-stop & ISO."</p>

<p>I did factor in focal length. You can safely handhold a Rolleicord's 75mm lens at 1/60. 1/60 went into the calculation.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Also as medium format is often not enlarged as much as 35mm it is a bit more forgiving of camera shake. The TLRs like the Rolleis and Yashica are quite nice to hand hold. Their leaf shutters are almost silent and there is no mirror slap either. If your careful you may even to able to hand hold at a 1/30th sec if you don't enlarge too much.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>That's very true regarding medium format. I can handhold my Mamiya C220's with an 80 mm lens down to about 1/15 second and often enough have a negative that's good enough to print up to 8x10. 'Course, it depends on how much coffee I've had that day. Too much and forget it. If I'm in the zone, I can do it. It's harder with the Hasselblad, and I don't think mirror slap is causing the problem. The C220 is better balanced, with most of the weight of the camera concentrated in the camera body,. so it sits well when cradled in the palm of the hand. The Hasselblad fitted with an 80 mm lens concentrates more weight out front in the the lens and less in the body, so it throws the balance off a little. I can manage 1/60 second with it, and on a good day, 1/30, but nothing slower.</p>