tri-x, tri-x pan 400, tri-x pan ?!

[domestic]

I´m slightly confused with the Kodak product names. It would be nice

if somebody could help me find out ...

I use the "Tri-x 400 pro", well at least this name is printed on the

paper package. The name on the film says "Tri-x pan 400".

 

Now, are "Tri-x pan 400/ Tri-x 400 pro" and "Tri-x pan" identical ?!

Does "pro" indicate different characteristics?

 

Thanks. Tim

[david_goldfarb]

Before, there was TX, which comes in 35mm and 120 rolls, TXP, which comes in 120 rolls, and TXT, which comes in sheets. TX was rated at 400, and TXP and TXT were rated at 320 by Kodak. They were three different emulsions, and TXP and TXT had a longer toe than TX, requiring slightly more care in exposure. I have some TX 120 packaged I think for European distribution that is called "Tri-X 400 Pro," to distinguish it from Tri-X Pan 320.

 

With the new versions, who knows. Time to do some testing.

[matthew_stanton2]

As long as it says 400 asa on the box it is the same emulsion.

Be it in 35mm or 120 ( it is not available in sheet film ).

 

The " professional " tri-x is the 320 asa version. This film has

rather different characteristics to the 400 asa tri-x. It is only

available in 120 and sheet film formats.

 

The film with a box speed of 400 has excellent midtone

separation and reasonable highlight separation. The film with a

box speed of 320 has excellent highlight separation but due to

its very long toe has only average midtone and shadow

separation.

 

Both films are good films It just depends on your personal

preferences.

 

I haven't yet seen or used the new versions of these films but I

suspect that part of your confusion may be to do with a slight

change in the way these films have been named by kodak.

I am also not sure if their aforementioned characteristics have

been noticably altered in the new emulsions. I suspect not.

[matthew_stanton2]

Sorry Tim,

 

David said it all before i got there.

 

Matt.

[al_kaplan1]

The sheet film and 120 film with the 320 speed also have a "retouching tooth" on the surface for those photographers who still attack their portrait negatives with retouching pencils and etching knife. The 400 Tri-X lacks this.

 

The 320's improved highlight seperation makes it easier to get good rendition of bridal dresses and white lace. If you want good shadow seperation in the mens' tuxedos use 400 Tri-X. Fun, huh?

[kelly_flanigan1]

The sheet films and 120 roll films are different emulusions; like David mentioned. The sheet film tri-x is a long toe film; usefull in studio work..It capture highlights well..For outdoor work ; I like the old Super-XX better; which had a shorter toe and better shadow detail separation (at least for me)...<BR><BR>The tri-x in 120 is a short toe film; and works well outdoors for my work.....<BR><BR>decades ago; before 1960; tri-x was rated at 200 asa; and had a 1 stop safety factor...The formal definition for asa was revised in 1960...............<BR><BR>Usually "pro" in B&W film means is usually has a retouching base...

[luc_desjardins]

In Europe its all mixed around...I have packages of 120 labled Tri-X pan 400, (which is what I'm thinking is same emulsion as the 35mm TX pan 400) and packages of 120 labled Tri-X "Pro"400 (which seem to be same as the Tri-X pan 400, and now this Tri-X Pro 320 (which I tried and dont like for my purpose)

 

I am being told that Kodak is no longer making regular Tri-X pan 400 in 120 roll film, only the Pro 320 tell me this is not true. Now we are hearing the news of even newer emulsion.

What is next... Rodinal!

 

Luc

[domestic]

Great. Thanks to all of you for your quick response.

Have a great day, whereever you might be.

*tim

[david_parmet1]

In my experience, TXP is a great film if and only if you can control the lighting.

It works great in the studio for portraits, lousy in the field for landscapes where

there's a wide brightness range.

 

AA used TXP for landscapes late in his life, but he was AA and he could do

that sort of thing.

 

The 400 stuff, either 35mm or 120, is a great all around film.

[stephen_benskin]

Kodak refers to TXP as a studio film. Studio lighting has less flare than exterior. Supposedly, the shadow reproduction will be similar between the two films when used under their respective conditions. An interesting side note: The effect of increased or decreased exposure on the density ranges of long toed films tends to be greater than with a more linear curve as many have noted with TXP.