Please help me identify these 2 negatives

[drjedsmith]

This is kind of dumb of me, but my wife and I had our first trial of

Tri-x and Tmax film developed, but we can't remember which negatives

are which film, and want to compare the grain / contrast, etc. :-)

<BR>

One says Kodak 400TX at the top, and the other says Kodak 400TMY.

Can you please tell us which is Tri-x and which is Tmax?<BR>

Thank you,<BR>

Jed and Kim

[julius_huang]

400 TX = Tri-X

400 TMY = TMAX 400

[hkbmac]

correct.

[drjedsmith]

Thank you very much. That was dumb, I should have marked them! Just out of curiosity, which do you like better? I'm going to take a closer look at them both tomorrow and form an opinion...

[lex_jenkins]

They're entirely different films, Jed. The negatives look quite different. There's no way to objectively say which is "better."

 

I prefer Tri-X as a more flexible films for a greater variety of situations. OTOH, TMY pushes better in Microphen, making it a favorite of mine for available light photography such as live theatre documentary work.

 

Also, Tri-X has a rounder, almost mushy grain while TMY has a grittier grain that can often be unappealing. OTOH, that gritty grain can help lend definition to photos in some situations.

 

TMY has punchier midtones while Tri-X tends to have smoother overall tonality. Again, very different films.

 

During the past year I've used about three rolls of TMY for every one of Tri-X. Now that's changing considerably in favor of Tri-X as my subject matter and tastes change.

[drjedsmith]

Lex, thanks for your observations on the two films. It's kind of interesting - I thought Tmax was suppposed to be less grainy, but we actually liked the Tri-X better. Can't really put a finger why, though.

[lex_jenkins]

Different kinda grain. Tri-X is more rounded and, to some of us, more aesthetically appealing, therefore more forgivable. Also, Tri-X grain responds readily to different types of developers.

 

TMY grain tends to be very tight, gritty, almost sandy in appearance. Tho' it is smaller and tighter in structure it is often less aesthetically appealing to me. The grain structure doesn't seem to respond readily to different types of developers. OTOH, the tight, well defined grain retains that characteristic look when TMY is pushed which is the very reason why I find TMY a very pushworthy film - the grain doesn't go to mush, at least not in Microphen. There may be other suitable developers but I'm happy with that combination.

 

Also, if one happens to like and actually want a very gritty, grainy look, it's hard to do better than TMY at around EI 400 in Rodinal. The definition and resolution are almost astounding.

[drjedsmith]

I appreciate the explanation about these two films. Seems to me that we just liked the round grain of Tri-x better, mabey. Of course, we didn't develop them ourselves - a friend who owns a photo shop did them, so I don't know which developer was used, etc.<BR>

Suppose I'll have to try out some more...B&W is kind of fun. :-)

[mike_scarpitti]

Describing the differences between these films requires a certain level of experience with various aspects of B&W tonal reproduction. I'd suggest doing a search on this site. The short answer is that they differ most notably in the way they reproduce tones in the shadows/mid-tones and highlights.