Is the Look of Kodak Plus X Roll Film Similar to Tri-X 320?

[25asa]

One of my photo friends suggested Plus X roll film has a very similar look to Tri-X Pro 320. The curves are apparently quite similar. Trying to find a replacement for Plus X roll film, but in 4x5, will 320 do? How do you find their looks in comparison? And how does Tri-X 320 shoot outdoors in bright sun? I find Plus X works very well in those conditions.

Edited April 16, 2023 by 25asa

[25asa]

Here are some chart graphs between these two films. Maybe someone could decifer and comment?

[conrad_hoffman]

Hard to tell as the characteristic curves are on different horizontal scales. Replot on the same scale and see how they compare. IMO, developed to the same CI, they'll look about the same, save for grain due to format size.

[ed_farmer]

No.  The two films are NOT similar.  Plus-X has always been known as a fine grained, smooth, film.  Not so much a Pan-F but very nice.  Tri-X has always been a staple and used to be considered "high speed".  It's now known more for grit and grain.

Both have always been great films with very different feels.

[glen_h]

Reminds me of always wondering, from when I was young, why both Verichrome Pan and Plus-X.

There are some different things to compare when looking at films.

The actual shape of the characteristic curves probably should be higher than it is.

(Though with scanning, we can correct it any way we want.)

From the "Vision and Art" book, Panatomic-X has the best characteristics.

That is, according to some measure, it is closer to what we see.

You might also look at the color sensitivity curve for the films.

[michael_goldfarb]

glen_h....

Verichrome Pan was essentially Plus-X with added exposure latitude, intended to get good results in simple roll film snapshooters with fixed apertures and shutter speeds.  It's telling that Kodak never offered Verichrome Pan in 35mm - a format for pros and serious amateurs using more sophisticated cameras - but it was their primo b/w film in 127, 120, 620, 828, etc., rolls for many years.

f7-Verichrome-199611.pdf (125px.com)

[allancobb]

On 4/16/2023 at 1:24 AM, 25asa said:

One of my photo friends suggested Plus X roll film has a very similar look to Tri-X Pro 320. The curves are apparently quite similar. Trying to find a replacement for Plus X roll film, but in 4x5, will 320 do? How do you find their looks in comparison? And how does Tri-X 320 shoot outdoors in bright sun? I find Plus X works very well in those conditions.

Tri-X Pro 320 is suited to low-flare interior lighting/flash and outdoor portraiture with low-contrast backlighting. That said, I have used it for landscapes in all lighting conditions with nice results. Here's an example with a Pentax 6x7:

 

And another (Bronica ETR):

As far as similarity to Plus-X, you can be the judge; after post-processing it's hard for me to discern one film from another, I know others are more adept at that.

Cheers, Allan

Edited May 11, 2023 by allancobb

[john_shriver]

Verichrome Pan has extreme exposure latitude, due to a two layer emulsion (fast and slow). It also keeps incredibly well, both before exposure, and latent image keeping. However, the multiple emulsion layers reduce acuity (sharpness), probably the reason it was never made in 35mm. Of course 828 film was 35mm wide!

Verichrome (orthochromatic) has none of Verichrome Pan's virtues. Never had any success using NOS Verichrome, or recovering a decent latent image from 70 years ago... Always wind up with basically black film.