T MAX vs. TRI- X

[geoff_malick]

Could someone explain the main differences between T-max and Tri- X

besides film speed, and why everyone thinks Tri-X better.Thanks.

[scott_schneider2]

Tri-X has a better grain pattern.

[douglas k.]

In the many developers I've used with both films, Tri-X gives finer grain, higher sharpness, and prettier tonality than T-Max 400. I actually prefer Ilford HP5+ to both aforementioned films, but the differences between HP5+ and Tri-X are slight and subjective.

[mr._kenny]

i like tmax over tri-x when i use my roller machine to develop my stuff -- which is pretty much 100% now. tmax is sharper and has less apparent grain. in the wrong developer -- rodinal -- the grain gets rather jagged compared to a salt-and-pepper texture with tri-x. horses for courses, these days i use tmax 100 and delta 3200.

[al_kaplan1]

T-Max was designed mostly because it uses less silver than "traditional" films. Back then (early 1980's)silver prices were rising. Initially the T-Max films had finer grain, but today that's no longer true. Tri-X has better tonal range as well. Because digital uses in photography,X-ray, printing industry are replacing film, silver prices are falling.

[jim_a]

T-Max is a more difficult film to develop. It's more finicky and less tolerant than Tri-X. You could develop Tri-X in puddle water and get good negs.

<P>

Some of my bias comes from when the paper where I worked switched to T-Max (this is about 11 years ago) and I didn't know enough to treat it differently. So I developed it just like Tri-X and it was always a bitch to print.

<P>

I've shot a few hundred feet of the new Tri-X and generally like it just as well as the old stock. In D-76 1:1 I find it gives me a negative with nice tones where I can hold highlights and still dig into the shadows.

<P>

However, after the urging of a friend I've been giving Neopan 400 a whirl. After just two rolls I may be making this my standard 400 speed film. I find Neopan 400 very easy to scan. It has a clear base. Not sure if that has anything to do with it but it's nice to look at it off the reel. The new Tri-X is more pinkish than the old.

<P>

I have about 50 feet of Tmax 100 in my freezer. I shot a few rolls and didn't like it at all. It had no bite to it. Delta 100 is my current favorite 100 speed film.

<P>

Anyone have anything they'd like to trade for that Tmax 100?<P>

<a href="http://www.jimarnold.org/">http://www.jimarnold.org/</a>

[steve_barnett2]

In my experience T-Max, either 100 or 400, has ugly grain compared to Tri-X, and is very highlight sensitive, meaning, it is easy to blow them out. This stands for most ways of exposing it, or developing it, even in T-Max developer. BUT, I have recently been experimenting with developing T-Max 100 and 400 in Ilford DD-X which has turned things around a little. Instead of ugly grain, like from say D76, there is 'no grain to very fine grain' with DD-X. And the highlights come back into play. Worth a go I think.

[beau 1664876222]

Tri-x is beautiful and easy to use. T-max 400 is the worst film out there. T-max 100 (TMX) is a great film if you expose it right and develop it in Rodinal. When people complain about TMX it's because either (i) they overdeveloped it or (ii) they haven't figured out the Rodinal thing. Just my opinions of course.

[sheridan]

For reasons stated above I easily prefer Tri-X to T-Max. Also, the grainier

property of Tri-X can make a slightly blurred image apparently sharper by

featuring the sharpness of the grain in the photo.

[charles barcellona www.bl]

HP5+ ANYday

[graeme_mitchell]

Tri-X and HP5 are in the same boat, they're old school grain structures, lotsa tonality, and low contrast (assuming a standard exposure). They're also super durable, can be pulled and pushed considerably, and are easy to develop.

 

T-Max and Delta are in the same boat. Newer grain structures (not round?) that many don't like, but if treated well can produce sharper and less grainy images than Tri-x or HP5. T-max also has less tonality, more contrast, and needs to be exposed and processed with more care.

 

I, unlike many, actually like T-max. I use HP5 in the streets. But for a lot of studio work I think 120 T-max is gorgeous.

[michael_bender]

Highs (i.e. positive, print highs) are very compressed and are likely to be burned out if you use T MAX on a beach, for example. It's curve is different and inferior to that of TriX. Also, TriX seems to provide a very wide (input) latitude, i.e. in places like California you are likely to be able to register both objects in the sun and in the shadow - while narrower films compell you to choose which ones to lose.<br>

TriX output characteristics are also different and visually your negatives will look as having wider range of tones, not as flat - which may be either good or may present problems (for digital scanning as one example)

[michael_bender]

ITS curve is different, sorry for typos

[travis1]

I take better pictures with TriX.

[harry_akiyoshi]

People have mostly covered the techical differences, so I guess I'll just say something completely subjective:

 

TMAX has always looked very sterile to me. I can mitigate the effect by printing well, but I'd rather not have to -- I'd rather just have good tonality without trying. Lately I prefer FP4+ (developed in PMK) over TMAX 100 (tried it in Rodinal, also in TMAX developer).

 

Also, despite what someone said about the horrible grain, I really like Tri-x in Rodinal. It's bitingly sharp even in huge prints, and the tonality is great. My negs in that combination are very, very easy to print. The grain is off-putting to some people, but I personally don't mind it. It's a look that suits my work far better than anything I saw from TMAX 400.

 

In general, I find that I'm more and more attracted to the previous generation of black-and-white films -- Pan F+, FP4+, Tri-X. Delta 3200 is pretty great, admittedly, but besides that, I've been consistently more satisfied with non t-grain films.

[Rob F.]

I shot a lot of T-Max when it first came out, because I thought that its fine grain and high resolution would take full advantage of my lenses. But I found that T-Max, especially T-Max 100, simply didn't look as sharp as other films, like Tri-X or Delta Pro. It also didn't have the tonal gradation. Eventually I learned that T-Max has relatively low local contrast, so it doesn't make as sharp edges in the image as many other films.

 

For a scientific application like aerial photo-mapping, maybe T-Max is the best. For pleasing images, I prefer Tri-X and Ilford Delta 100 and 400.

[jun_cho]

I want to ask something to Beau Brashares.

Can you tell me more data about Tmax and Rodinal. Dilution ratio, developing time and etc.

[olliesteiner]

T-Max grain makes skin highlights look like the highlights on a figure from a wax museum. Tri-X grain makes skin highlights look like skin highlights.

[terrypittman]

Nothing could be finer than to be in Caroliner with Tri-X and D:76...

[bas1]

Just never ever having been able to develop anyting decent out of the Tmax films, never ever where as Tri-x has rendered some nice enlargements on my walls. Have seen people do wonderful things with the TMX version, especially in the 120 format but so far I failed. I will give it an other go soon though with the Hasselblad for some insane sharp portraits I've been wanting to do. Will not attempt to develop myself though.

 

The TMY version is just the most horrible film ever. Don't get it at all. Waste of money imoh.

[paulstenquist]

I love Tri-X. It's the old school look for BW, and I've been shooting

it for 25 years. But T-Max 400 can be a great film when

processed correctly. Try exposing it at ISO 200, then process it in

D-76 1:1 for 11 minutes at 68 degrees F. Better grain and

contrast than Tri-X, but it's not old school BW. But very nice,

nevertheless.

Paul

[lachaine]

My limited experience so far after coming back to B&W photography after a hiatus of about 20 years is that, I see no reason not to stick with either Tri-X or HP5, as I used to use. What's the point of using something like T-MAX? It's so hard to get it just right with that film. With B&W, as we all know, it's all about tonal range. The more conventional B&W films have it, so why bother with anything else.

[canon_eos_rules]

100TMAX in T-MAX developer is nice, but I definitely prefer good ol' Tri-X developed

in straight D-76-there's just something magical about it. Plenty of contrast, a unique

grain structure, and lots of sharpness-it's all good. Oh, did I mention it's reasonably

priced?

[beau 1664876222]

Jun Cho,

 

Sorry it took me awhile: Expose the TMX at 64, dilute the Rodinal 1:50, and develop at 68F for 9-11 minutes with light agitation.

[howard_glazer]

T-Max has sharper grain. Doesn't matter if people are saying Tri-X is better, you have to blow film very large in order to see grain or grain structure. It exactly is done in labs. The Resolving power of T-max is far greater then at of Tri-X, but like all things developers and films, you have to take into consideration the following:

 

A) Camera Exposure - Did you expose the film correctly (remember two things. 1) your camera meter lies. It measures for 18% gray and thats IT. 2) Old batteries in the camera can give your meter a weaker reading, aka giving you the wrong exposure.

 

b) Developing Times and Temperatures. To get less grain in your pictures you REALLY have to keep all the chemicals AND WASH temperatures THE SAME. Yes, even the wash temperature after fixing the film. I know this sounds crazy "why would you have to worry about it after its been fixed. Before you agrue it, GO OUT AND TRY IT! Also make sure you are developing for at the right temperature. If its warmer or cooler then the data chart time you have to compensate. The warmer the temperature the faster the film is going to develop. If you develop at 70 and the time listed is for 68, your OVER developing and that will ADD grain to your film.

 

Once again, you want to argue that Tri-X is less grainer thats fine, but in all truth, there is something wrong in your shooting or developing processes if your Tri-X is coming out grainer. Data charts dont lie. But at the same time, the data chart work with all ideal conditions and the real world isn't like that. But if you keep a tight control on your process and shooting you'll find that T-Max has less grain and be blown up much larger before seeing the grain. Again, if you keep tight control over your process of shooting and developing.