Is Tri-X the real Leica Film?

[james_kennedy2]

When I was assigned to Viet Nam in 1966, I aquired my first 35mm

camera, very nice Konica (new for $35). The film of choice in my

circle was plus-x which had adequate speed and a nice tonal range.

Tri-X was for no-flash interiors and seemed to be more harsh and

contrasty. We rarely shot color because of the logistics and

expense, but when we did, it tend to make Saigon look like Miami

Beach, bright, cheerful, and resorty. At present in the US, color

negative film is dominant and you have to go out of your way to shoot

B&W.

 

However, based on an informal survey of messages to this forum, I

would say that the vast majority of photographers use Tri-X. Is this

because they are trying to capture some photo noir or photo verite

mood, or is it flexibility, cost, and convenience?

[vic_.]

You're obviously not a JFK Kennedy. They were busy guarding Martha's Vineyard against Vietcong invasions.

[preston_merchant]

The stuff's cheap and nearly idiot-proof, seems to have withstood the test of time.

[skip_williams]

I gave up on Tri-X long ago. Delta 100 and 400 now grace my Leicas all the way up to ISO 3200. I don't miss Tri-X at all with its large grain. It had nice tonality, but I can't see going back for 35mm. For MF, I might have a different idea.

[jay_.]

With the exception of Delta 3200 which has a very specific use, I have shot only T400CN since it first appeared. The amazing, smooth tonal range and possibility to have someone else process the negs just blew traditional B&W right out of my bag.

[giles_poilu]

Tried Tri-X once, awful stuff IMO - just did not work for me.

 

Despite the delicate (scratch prone) base I have not found anything to compare with the combination of exposure latitude, sharpness, reliability, general ease of use and creamy range of tones that is Ilford XP2 Super.

 

Even the luddites who consider it (and Kodaks equivilent) not to be 'proper' B&W film must concede that in your criteria of flexibility, cost and convenience Tri-X comes a poor second.

[doug herr]

Nope, Kodachrome II was the real Leica film. I'd love to have seen what this long-gone film would have done behind modern Leica glass.

[john_fleetwood]

For work, I shoot only TX when I shoot b&w. I know how to get out of it what I want. For play, I'll try anything.

[henry_chu2]

James, Up to two years ago, I was shooting mainly Delta

400--enjoyed using it but noted that when printing the negatives,

in order to get any zip in the prints, I was printing with the variable

contrast head cranked up to grade 3.5 at least. I decided to

switch back to TriX to see the results. Loved it! The dynamic

range is remarkable. I process it in a mixture of Rodinal and

Xtol. This combo yields relatively fine grain with a nice snap.

[al_kaplan1]

Tri-X has a nice rich tonality, pushes fairly well when you really need it, and gives a variety of looks with different developers. I prefer D-76 1:1. I put in my time playing with every film and developer combo that came down the pike. We all go through that stage. Sure Kodak tweaks Tri-X every few years but it's a hell of a lot better film than 20 or 40 years ago.

[feli]

They make other film besides Tri-X?

 

I love it. It's nearly indestructable, has great latitude, beautiful tonal range and even the grain is nice looking. You can make it smooth, grainy, contrasty or flat. It can be pushed and pulled and it even scans pretty well. It has character and it's fairly cheap. Tri-X and a bottle of D76. What more could you ask for?

 

feli

[paul hart]

I'm one of the plebs who's wedded to XP2+. I gave up developing and printing years ago for reasons of time, and being able to drop the stuff off on the way to work and pick it up on the way back is a major plus for me.

 

I do find that I can usually improve on the Fuji machine's efforts with my combination of a CanoScan FS4000, Vuescan software, and a decent Epson printer. What say you?

[raymond_tai]

Kodak updated its B&W films and I am cynical enough to conclude it was mostly to cut costs such as to further remove silver content from TX. I have been using Ilford and don't see a need to switch back to Kodak.

[olivier_reichenbach]

Vic, what on earth is your post doing on this thread? But until Tony deletes us both (and rightly

so) I will add: sure, and this where JFK got wounded and then endured terrible back pains all his

life, right? And who else among modern USA presidents has been a draft dodger? Just look it

up.

 

Now, back to the thread: 100 ISO? Delta 100, or Kodak Plux-X (for obviously very different

reasons), 400 ISO? Tri-X first and foremost. But I also like the convenience and smoothness of

T400CN and XP2.

[jlee]

All these comments and no votes for TMax? Curious..I might have to revist TX. FWIW, I've enjoyed Tmax 400 with D-76 1:1 and TMAX 3200 developed in straight Tmax developer. Are there conditions that TX works best? I haven't touched it in 10 years.

[Troll]

Does no one use fine grain/high resolution film any more? Otherwise, there's no need for high acuity Leica lenses.

[sprouty]

Yep, it's a favorite of mine but my regular shop wont touch it and the place that will develop it charges me at least twice what I pay for developing Tri-X. And they do such shit work with prints that I have have them do the negatives and my regular place do the prints. Uh, what a headache!

 

 

And for what it's worth I like the look of Tri-X and Delta 100, both different but nice.

 

 

Here is an example by Steve Patterson of Tri-X pushed that I find quite nice:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=394901

 

Regards,

 

sp

[kevin m.]

James, Tri-X has grain! Depending on how you process it, maybe lots of grain. Beautiful grain. Plus, as you mention, it's flexible, cheap and convenient. It's less than $2.00 a roll if you mail order; you can pull it or push it, develop it in almost anything you have in your darkroom and still get printable results; with a minimal darkroom setup, you can do it all in the privacy of your own home.

 

I just switched back after using only T400CN for the last 2 years and I've never been so happy to see grain. With T400CN you get incredible highlight latitude and the smoothest look of any 400-speeed film I'm aware of. But I find the film doesn't enlarge well. Anything over a 5x7 and the lack of grain just looks mushy to me. Tri-X, in contrast, looks horribly grainy when viewed close up, but viewed as an 8x12 print on a wall from 5 feet away the grain seems to add to the illusion of 'sharpness,' for lack of a better term. It seems to give the eye something tangible to focus on at normal viewing distances.

[stefano_ferrando1]

Never seen a film with the Leica logo engraved...

 

I'll look bettern tomorrow :-)

 

Stefano.

[majid]

Tri-X is probably the only true (non-chromogenic) B&W film available at Walgreens, and I suspect at most other convenience/drugstores. You can always fall back to it if you run out of film. It's a grainy film, but the grain is not very harsh and you can still make pleasing 11x14 from 35mm.

 

I am adopting a wait-and-see attitude with the new Kodak emulsion, and testing Neopan 400, Delta 400 and APX 400 in the meantime, but the old Tri-X is still an excellent film.

[djphoto]

I use different films for different purposes, but for general use, HP-5+ rated at 800 and developed in T-Max gives me great sharpness, tonality, and fine grain.

[ralph_barker]

Tri-X? I haven't shot Tri-X in 30 years. My personal preference for B&W in the Leica (or any of the other cameras for that matter) is Ilford FP4+ for its tonality and relatively fine grain. Second choice would be Ilford Delta 100 for conventional work, HP5+ or Delta 3200 where the extra speed is needed. If I need extremely fine grain, Fuji Neopan Acros is king.

[derek_stanton2]

I sold a Canon D60 and bought a Mamiya 6 and Leica M7 just because i LOVE Tri-X. I don't imagine i'll ever shoot anything other than Tri-X/Plus-X for quite a while. I don't know how to characterize it, but it just seems 'classic' to me. All the other films seem to look like something's missing in the tonality. The only other film i can truly say is inspiring is Scala. Amazing results, and the film seems able to magnificentize images. But, i have had difficulty scanning it. In the hand, the slides are beautiful, but I haven't captured that by scanning and getting satisfactory prints from positive b+w materials is problematic.

[oliver_s.]

Tri-X is awfully expensive where I live while you get Neopan 400 thrown at you 'cuz it doesn't sell. I tried it and really liked it when developed in Rodinal.<p>T-max 100 developed in T-max developer offers incredibly high resolution. I don't fully believe E. Puts, but what he wrote about this film some time ago (before he added the current copyright notice to his newsletter) was correct. It doesn't look nice, however, if you use another developer; then it lacks tonal range and doesn't have that high resolution.<p>And then there's chromogenic stuff. How dare you use it in a Leica? It becometh the lowly Canons and Nikons!<br>Oh well. I'm another heretic who has come to like XP2 Super for the long dark winter evenings.

[lee_shively]

When I first started in photography in 1973 or so, I bulk loaded Tri-X. When I started working as a newspaper photographer in 1975, I shot nothing but Tri-X. I've shot about 100,000 rolls (maybe more, I wore out several Nikon F2's using Tri-X) in the past 30 years. It was great film but I haven't shot it in a couple of years. I understand Kodak has changed it a few times and the current film is different from the 1970's stuff. I still have a dozen rolls in the freezer but I recently discovered Ilford HP5+. I like this film as much as the old Tri-X. When I bought my M6 in November I set the ISO dial to 400, loaded up some HP5+ and shot a couple of test rolls. It looked great. The ISO dial hasn't been changed since and I'm still shooting HP5+.