r_david Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 I shot and developed my first roll of Tri-X in 35 years. THAT was not the Tri-X I grew up with. It looked liked TMY - both developed in full strength D-76. HP5 looks more like old Tri-X - although, I haven't shot HP5 in a couple of years. Has anyone else noticed this? Or am I stuck in nostalgia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 <p>Tri-X was reformulated years ago, and doesn't closely resemble what it looked like in the 1960-70s. Still a great film though.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r_david Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share Posted August 16, 2015 Don't get me wrong. Tri-X rocks! But I don't see any difference with TMAX 400. And TMAX is cheaper - quite a bit cheaper per 100'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Yup, I noticed that as well about 10 years ago. Tri-X now resembles 1990s T-Max 400. More sensitizing dye and iodide content, stronger residual purple base tint (whereas my older Tri-X negatives dried neutral steely gray), finer grain... good film, but not really Tri-X any more. The differences show in the same developers used than and now, especially HC-110 and D-76. By the time I began using Diafine Kodak had already changed Tri-X so I'm not sure how that classic combination should have looked. Alas, HP5+ isn't quite like old Tri-X either. Good film, more of a classic look, but not a substitute. Meanwhile, I began to prefer TMY for pushing. It suits me better at 1600 in Microphen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r_david Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share Posted August 16, 2015 Thanks Lex. Sometimes these things are so subjective ; it's good to get another opinion. For example, my opinion of HP5. Let me post another question instead of high jacking my own thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 <p>In 100 foot rolls, Tri-X costs about as much per foot as for 36exp rolls. I believe that isn't true for TMY, but I haven't looked so carefully.</p> <p>TMY should be T-grain, and Tri-X not T-grain, but otherwise they might not be so different. </p> <p>I first started using Diafine when I was 10 years old, after my grandfather taught me about it, and not long before I inherited most of his photography equipment. It has been my favorite over the years. In 8th grade, I did school yearbook photography with it, usually with Tri-X at EI 1200 or 1600, and available light. (The rooms had one wall of mostly windows, so a little more light than many classrooms.) </p> <p>I don't know that I ever tried to directly compare old and new, though. </p> <p> </p> -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbcarter Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 <p>I don't buy TX any more. The look of the 70's (when I started) is long gone and you are right on the mark, hp5 is it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Helmke Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 <p>I haven't bought TX lately, I don't get the look I want which is the look I got in the 70's and 80's when I shot miles of the stuff. Nowadays it costs too damn much and I get closer to the look I want with HP-5 although it isn't quite the same either.</p> <p>Rick H.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbcarter Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 <p>I mostly shoot ORWO these days and leave the kodak stuff alone. I find the UN54 (px like, in tones) and N74+ (gritty on a good day) are the grade of films I used back then. Rick, if you look into using bad processing techniques (the ones we naturally strive not to do), you can get that look back with any film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tklim Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 <p>R David - I couldn't agree more. A fortnight ago I shot and developed my first roll of TX400 in years... For all that time I had been using mostly APX and RPX films. The TX400 was developed in home-brewed FX-15, the developer I've been using most recently. Results? Surely, it does not resemble the old TRI-X, the images being visually quite pleasing nonetheless...</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now