New Tri-X vs. Old Tri-X

[ed_pierce2]

With some trepidation I prepare to try the new 4x5 Tri-X. The old

stuff was great enough for me to use it exclusively for 20 years.

Just wondering if anyone's tried it and your impressions.

[david_grandy5]

I had some older Kodak Darkroom Dataguides from the 60's, 70's and 80's and in almost each one there was a different development number for Tri-X. Since D-76 hasn't changed then one could only presume that Kodak has tweaked Tri-X - and really all of its films - from the beginning. So "New Tri-X" is only one of many, many, new Tri-X's over the years, all of which perform very well.

[frank lahorgue]

For what it's worth, I just called B&H hoping to order some of the "old" Tri-X. They claim to have only "new" stuff for sale. Are there any sources for old Tri-X?

 

Frank LaHorgue

[mark_sampson]

Don't worry about it. Don't trust anyone else's opinion. Do a quick test and you'll have the answer. I'm sure, like the rest of us, that you'd prefer a root canal w/o anesthesia to actually running an exposure/development test, but it's the only way.

[david_goldfarb]

Well, you know what they say about "teaching an old dog new Tri-X."

[dan_furlano]

I can't believe that they did anythng good to the "new" tri-x. I have also been using it for over twenty years. Now I will switch to another film. Not sure what yet but I really do hope that Kodak goes out of business. They have done nothing but ruined the film and paper products that they made. All in the name of another internal productivity program.

[eric_mortensen3]

I may be wrong, but as I understand it Kodak's new development times for their black and white films reflect a recent move to a new updated factory in the Rochester area. Although the changes in development times are annoying, construction of this new facility actually reflects a committment by Kodak to produce black and white film for the next 20-30 years. Perhaps we should be happy about this rather than wishing them to go under. Just my 2 cents.

[photobyalan.com]

Dan,

 

Perhaps you should give the "new" Tri-X a chance before you condemn it and wish the last American film manufacturer out of business. As I understand it, Kodak has tried to maintain the look and feel of Tri-X while updating the film base to make manufacture more efficient. To me, this kind of investment shows that the company is committed to keeping this film in production, which is a good thing. I also don't share your view that Kodak has "ruined" other films. Their Portra line of films, particularly the 400BW, are beautiful films that do their job very well. Sure, they have discontinued some films and some sizes, just like any other for-profit company would be forced to do when demand for their product dropped to the point where it was no longer economically viable (profitable) for them to manufacture it.

 

I, for one, am looking forward to trying the "new" Tri-X. Not all changes are bad but judging something (or someone) without getting to know it usually is.

[vicki_guidice]

My company is about 2 miles from where that stuff is made. I know most of those guys over there in Professional Imaging. To think there is some sinister corporate maneuvering going on is crazy. Nuts. Kodak is simply updating the manufacturing facility for black and white materials (some of you guys ought to try the photographic design and manufacturing business -- it's a real hoot).

 

Anyway, there are lots of misconceptions going around about the "new" Tri-X I'll address here. The film emulsion isn't new at all by the way, just the facility where they'll be making it.

 

1) The Tri-X isn't out yet. If anyone says they've used it, they're lying. 35mm samples are being given out, but the guys in PI don't even know what the new sheet film packaging looks like yet! B&H might be selling "gray market" stuff like those gray market Pentax spotmeters they're selling. Or they don't know what they're talking about, which is more likely. Inconsequential anyway - none of the new stuff is out yet.

 

2) The response characteristics and new development times of the new T-Max and Plus-X films made at the new facility - which are available now - differ by less than 5 per cent! Almost beyond notice. I'm going to compare the old and new data sheets but 5 per cent is pretty close.

 

3) Kodak is beyond peer in their quality control. I haven't noticed a change in Tri-X in 25 years. None. The stuff made at the new facility will probably have similar changes - unnoticeable. If there is something that bothers you, adjust slightly. C'mon guys! Try cooking an omelette on an unfamiliar stovetop and see how consistent you are... and you're commenting on manufacturing emulsions?

 

4) Tri-X is a gold mine for that company. Why do you think they are taking so long to get it right? -- to upset people and have them switch brands? To change that film would be a major mistake and they are much too conservative and intelligent for that.

 

5) No Kodak isn't paying me to say this -- Fine Art Photo Supply isn't even a Kodak dealer yet. I don't like to see them bad mouthed by uninformed folks because they are a fine company and make the very best materials available.

 

6) Kodak is doing this for you, not them. They could leave the old facility intact and the quality of all the B&W films would steadily decline over the next five years, and they would make more profits. But they are implementing a modern, very expensive coating facility instead. That's called serving the marketplace. Some of you guys should try that.

 

If you really want to lash out at something, how about lobbying New York State to get off Kodak's backs with all their over-regulation and taxes? ... and the Federal Government while you're at it. If governments keep penalizing decent, dead-honest companies like Eastman Kodak who serve the marketplace with goods and services, pretty soon you'll be paying even more for film and paper. Or there won't be any to get.

 

Anthony

Fine Art Photo Supply

[aaron l]

Kudos to Vicki! If Kodak wished to dump their product, they certainly wouldn't build a new manufacturing plant and go to the MASSIVE expense, esp. in NY, to do it.

[dan_furlano]

I respect all your responses.

 

But my opinion is based upon the fact that I have worked with Kodak, Polaroid, and Xerox on multiple product development projects.

 

The fact is that the idea of moving to a "newer" manufacturing site has little to do with maintaining the current quality of any product. It�s all about cost out.

 

The fact is that Kodak is continuing to find new suppliers that will reduce the cost of the raw materials that go into their products. Hence performance will continue to degrade.

 

The fact is that the "new" tri-x will be made with lower cost materials with little regard for end use performance in a processing line optimized for throughput.

 

The fact is that I cannot tell you one product that Kodak manufactures that has gotten better over time. Is APS a better 35mm film? Look at their 120 color films. How many times are they going to change it?

 

You are correct I have not tried the new tri-x and this is only an expression of my frustration and anger. But knowing Kodak there will be more �changes� that will go on without any indication to the end user base. So my preference will be to find another film to use.

[ed_candland1]

With all due respect I'm really not sure what your talking about Dan. As for comparing APS to 35mm. I'm not saying it was the best thing since sliced bread, but let's compare apples to apples. APS was thought up by a group of companies not just Kodak and it was designed to be easier to use and more compact for the snapshot shooter. It's like saying what's with this 120 or 35mm film the quality is not up to the quality of LF. There are many newer Kodak products that I have been happy with I think the E100VS is a very nice film, thanks you.

 

Ed,

[tim_atherton2]

Interesting article in the new Photo Techniques. They only tested 35 mm (and not Tri-X 320), But found that:

 

there was almost no difference in dev times in the emulsions they compared - old and new

 

Curve characteristics old and new were almost identical.

 

Biggest difference was grain - most emulsions were improved grain wise. Especially Tri-X. The Exception was T-Max400, which was now MORE grainy. In fact Tri-X had improved so much, it was now less grainy than T-Max400..

 

Testing was done by the ex-kodak product developers who developed Xtol and other things.

 

Be interesting to see if this holds true for sheet film

 

BTW - they couldn't figure out where Kodak got there new, and sometimes wildly different development times from.

 

Their advice was to stick with what you've always done for a said film, and then see if there are any big differences.