The Tri-X look on not Tri-X

[nickjohnson]

Hello all,<p>

 

 

I've been working on this project of mine, blank yourself, and using

Tri-X to do it. I have most of whats done in <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=207053

">this presentation</a>. The problem is Tri-X doesn't scan too

easily, not like C-41, and the grain is pretty rough. Would I be

better served by switching to a chromogenic B&W and shooting from now

on, reshooting the old stuff to retain the look throughout, shoot TMax

100 and get the smoothness, or just resign myself to Tri-X and dust

the negs in Photoshop? Any experiences with switching films in the

middle of a series would be appreciated.

[lex_jenkins]

What developer have you tried with Tri-X so far? While Tri-X isn't the easiest film to scan well due to its grain structure it is possible to help minimize the grain.

 

Trying to match the look with another film wouldn't be too tough - HP5+ would probably come closest. It can be developed with somewhat finer grain than Tri-X.

 

And reshooting the entire series on an entirely different film, like XP2 Super? Sounds like a lot of work. Up to you.

[new hampshire john]

Nicholas -

 

I wish I could help you on this, so you would keep producing the Blank Yourself series (which had me laughing out loud, a very rare online occurrence, indeed). I guess my recommendation would be to work on your scanner settings -- lots of folks scan Tri-X and have good results (not that yours are bad -- but they could be tweaked). Are you scanning in B&W or RGB, and using the provided software or some of the excellent third-party software? Using a computer solution would allow you to rescan old images with which you're not satisfied, keep shooting the same film, and have continuity of appearance with future images.

 

And keep 'em coming (that's not a double entendre), I've not seen anything this fresh in a while -- there's a definite repulsion-attraction-laugh riot thing happening for you. Good luck!

[evan_parker]

Argh... that's a tough one. On one hand, you must want to retain the look of the past pictures in your series (and Tri-X negs definitley have a distinctive look to them) but on the other, retouching in Photoshop is no ones definition of fun.

 

Film scanners, like others have said, are calibrated for the "dye clouds" of chromogenic film, not the "silver specks" of B&W film. Although switching to TMX, with it's tabular-grain emulsion, would probably help, you'd still be switching films, and TMX most certainly has a very distinctive look in and of itself.

 

Quite honestly, I'd either use Tri-X and just deal with the problems it presents (search for Intellihance on Google. It's a great software program by Extensis and comes with a generous 30 day full featured trial and could be what you are looking for. It's a PShop plugin) or shoot XP2 Super and add noise/unsharp masking digitally to maintain a "look".

 

To be honest, I rather like the grain. If you do stick with Tri-X, try devv'ing in Microdol, HC-110 or D-76.

[frank.schifano]

HP5+ doesn't do that much better than Tri-X in a scanner. Best to scan the prints or to use a C-41 film. I know the tonality is not the same, but those are the breaks.

[scott_eaton]

If your goal is to scan the film and never screw with printing them conventionally, then my best advice is to shoot a C-41 film and desaturate.

 

Even the drugstore 800 speed films like Superi 800 will give easier 'fiddle-proof' scan results than 35mm Tri-X. Scanning conventional B/W film is becoming an art unto itself.

 

Radical idea: shoot 400 speed slide film like Sensia/Provia 400 and then scan/desaturate. That way you wont look like everybody else who's shooting/scanning 400 speed print films.

[new hampshire john]

Scott's last point is well taken -- it seems like recently I've looked at three or four shots and been impressed with their sharpness, clarity, and tonal range, and then some jerk goes and bursts my old-timey-silver-based-black-and-white-film bubble by saying that it's a desaturated image from color positive film. You might try using that and then applying one of the many filters popping up these days to make images look like they were taken on Tri-X or other old-timey films. Are they plug-ins for Photoshop or somesuch? I wouldn't know but surely some folks lurking here would...

 

Of course, then your new images -- while they might be lovely -- will be different from your old images...

[scott_eaton]

While it's easy to add grain artifacts to an image to closely emulate B/W film, you can't emulate density range, and that's what splits classic B/W films from the rest of the field. As good as I am with film scanning, I'll never challenge classic B/W films in terms of density range with a C41 film.

 

Scanning classic B/W films is tricky, tricky, tricky.

 

So, that leaves us with films that are easy to scan, such as the chromogenics/C-41 and Fuji's lot of slide films. Compared to UC 400 and the other top of the line 400 speed print films classic B/W films like Tri-X don't have a flaming chance in terms of grain/speed efficiency, and it dramatically shows up in a typical scan. Still, the classic B/W films have that unique, powerfull density range that you just aren't going to get from a chromogenic film or color neg film. So what do you do?

 

To be honest, the reason that many of you get fooled by desaturated images is for two reasons. First, most color films are designed to be scanner friendly (UC 400/Supra 400/Superia Reala) while older B/W films aren't. Next, I'd say 95% of conventionally scanned B/W film I see on the internet sucks, and it sucks very bad. Classic B/W films have such a myth about them that when you see a good, crisp, B/W image you assume it's Tri-X when in fact the photog is using Provia, or Superia, or a Canon G2.

 

Again, so what do you do?

 

A big option is to shoot slide film and desaturate. Slide films have more density range than color C41 films and except in the case of 400 speed films can easily match them in terms of scanner sharpness.

 

Another option is to use color neg films that have fairly high contrast (aka 'ballz') because the conventional B/W chromogenics like XP2 are low contrast materials and they tend to turn off class B/W shooters for this reason. XP2 and T400CN weren't meant to compete with Tri-X for crying out loud. Plus, since you are desaturating, who cares about color rendition in the first place. That means it's fair game for Superia 800/400 or even Gold 100.

[nickjohnson]

I'm feeling like the best thing to do is just start shooting Superia 400, which at one point was my all purpose film until I got 25 rolls of Royal Gold 100. I find that when you do "channel mixer" and play with the curves in PS that I can get a somewhat B&W Tri-X look.

[feli]

I had trouble scanning Tri-X until I started to use Vuescan software with my scanner (Hamrick.com). The difference between the Minolta software and Vuescan is like day and night.

 

It's about $40 bucks.

 

 

Cheers,

 

feli

[400bpm]

What do you mean Tri-X doesn't scan too easily?<p>

 

I've been pretty content with the scans I've gotten from Tri-X with my LS-40, and your scans in the presentation (which is great, BTW) don't look bad at all. What's the beef?

[michael_kravit]

Try Tri-X in PMK which will give you negatives that scan like butter.

 

Mike

[joe_hodge]

I don't understand how you would keep the Tri-X look but not the grain, since the grain is a large part of it. I don't know how you are scanning, but I have had the best results scanning Tri-X at 48-bit RGB to get the most raw data into PS, and cleaning up from there. Its grainy, but its a good sort of grainy.

<p>

I'm currently developing <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1534249>Tri-X in Xtol</a>, and am quite pleased with the technical results I am getting from that combination. My composiition on the other hand...

<p>

The chromogenics are nice also, and you can scan them using ICE/FARE which is, IMO, their greates advantage over traditional B&W for those using a hybrid workflow. They don't look even remotely like Tri-X at anything larger that a thumbnail, though.

<p>

I like the series and would keep on the way you are going, except maybe adjust your scanning/cleanup technique a bit. Obviously you are proficient in PS, so not much to say there. I prefer a bit narrower contrast range, but that may just be personal taste.

<p><div></div>

[nickjohnson]

I think I'll try to shoot the next photo (Hurl yourself, as in throw up) on some Superia this weekend and play with that. Super cheap film, so no loss if it sucks and I get to continue using ICE.<p>

Joe, you comment on the contrast and I hate it too. It looks nothing like the wet prints I was doing and I can often not tell the difference between whats a big ulgy grain and whats a big ulgy dustball. I always felt like the highlights were overexposing (a Tri-X problem, I know) and I don't know how to control that as easily as a #1 filter or pulling the film.<p>

Anyway, I'll post the results on the forum when its done. Thanks for all your help!

[andrew_grant]

Easy to scan, easy to shoot. I find the low contrast an advantage. I can shot in contrasting conditions (such as a sunny day) and not suffer from the blown out highlights I would get shooting digital or slide film. Contrast is easily boosted in Photoshop.

 

For some scanned XP2 examples, see my Ground Zero portfolio. They were shot around noon on a sunny day.

[pphaneuf]

Push it. I like to over expose it a bit, so I do stuff like shooting it at 800 and giving it a two stop push at the lab. Works like magic. Still not too much density range (I'm all with Scott on this, get Provia 100F and desaturate), but the contrast will get the kick in the pants that it deserves.

 

If you've got a high contrast situation, use it as-is. If you need really high speed, the increased contrast is still manageable because it was so low to start with. XP2 is really great. :-)

[andrew_grant]

Contrast can easily be added with photoshop. However I normally use XP2 when I am shooting in high contrast situations otherwise I would just use my 10D and convert to B&W.