Tri-X

[barefoot]

Why is Tri-X so popular with Leica Users?

 

Thanks,

 

Stuart

[h._p.]

Not with me, it's not. :-)))

 

I much prefer HP5 but then I only use mono in 120 these days.<div></div>

[working camera]

It's either FP4 plus or APX 100 or 400 for me.

[mikep1]

1. Many like the classic "look" - classic because it was a popular "fast" film used by many of the famous names in 35mm.

 

2. It is extremely forgiving in developing. Really sloppy darkroom work in timing, temp, chemical mix, poor fixing, etc. will still produce satisfactory negs. Use the same sloppiness with Tmax, for example, and you'll throw the negs in the trash. Of course, this shouldn't be THE reason to select a film...

 

3. Some people probably like it because TriX and M leicas are about the same age so they they somehow "go together."

 

 

But is REALLY easy to work with and nearly impossible to screw up. It's great for sloppy workers like me!

[huw_finney]

It's Ilfords Delta series for me.

[msitaraman]

Lot of rangefinder photography is centered around people. Tri-X has "luminous" skintones, especially when you shoot against the light.

[__stu_evans]

Tones, moans - it's just hard to screw it up.

[Karim Ghantous]

Latitude? I don't know - I don't use b&w film much as I don't have a darkroom. But isn't it supposed to have the greatest exposure latitude of any film (along with HP5)?

 

Hey, Craig - I used APX100 years ago 'cos it was good value for money. I'm guessing there's a better reason than that for you? And how's the grain on APX400?

[working camera]

Karim,

 

I got put on to APX years ago when I was bumming around Europe. The Germans

swear by it in combination with �Leica Glass�. For obvious reasons the Leica / Nikon

TX combo is more of a North American tradition. FP4 was my first love and I continue

to like the sweet way it renders tonal gradations.

 

The 400 APX is grainy but it has a nice crispness about it that you don�t get with TX.

It also gives a little more punch than Old Yella�s TX.

 

IMHO APX is best done in Rodinal, looks muddy with D76. I think there is a bit of

truth in the old adage �Kodak in Kodak soup and Agfa in Agfa soup� etc.

 

And what do you mean that you haven�t got a darkroom you cant be a photographer

with out one. But you are in good company it took Paul Strand until he was in his 70s

before he got his own dedicated facilities. Anyway what are bathrooms for! Before, I

built mine here the bathroom was often converted for more practical purposes. So

much so, that the neighbours took pity on my poor wife and invited her over for

ablutions.

 

BTW, how's your reading going, I�m sending the test next week.

 

Regard Craig

[lee_shively]

Latitude, tonal range, adaptable to many developers, pushable to 3200 (if you can accept the quality)...lots of reasons.

 

I've been using HP5 for the last 2-3 years instead of Tri-X. I like it better.

[cabophoto]

I used to work with Tri-X for almost all of my B&W pictures but switched to HP5+ later. Frankly said, I can´t see a whole of difference between the two and HP5+ is cheaper over here in Germany.

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[guy bennett]

APX 400 is my standard b&w film. It's got a silver rich emulsion that gives it a

broad tonal range. I develop it in Xtol 1:3, which creates a beautiful, "soft" grain

that looks great in 8 x 12 prints.

[feli]

Classic look (D76), nice grain pattern, very forgiving due to wide exposure latitude, idiot

proof developing, cheap, widely available in N. America, seems to hold up better to

environmental abuse (heat etc), can be pushed to 800 with no problem.

 

I've been shooting TX for many years, but every once and a while I come across some old

APX400 negatives and am struck by the high silver content and large tonal scale of the

film.

 

 

Feli

[gary_ferguson1]

Back in the late 1970's when I was studying for a degree in photography I used a Leica M3 (I'm still using it today alongside an M7). Leica's fortunes were at a very low ebb in those days, which was probably why I could afford the M3. The real object of veneration for most of my fellow students was a Nikon F2.

 

But Nikon or Leica there was only one film to use, and that was Tri-X. It had a reputation forged in hard news and even though most of us never got further than a pop festival or a street demonstration it was the only emulsion to be seen with. Sad eh? Guess not much has changed in the world of Leica for the last thirty years!<div></div>

[jorge]

I "discovered" HP5+ some eight years ago and have never looked back to Tri-X, even tho it's much more easy to find in my home town (no Ilford dealer here) and slightly cheaper. Tri-X is a fond memory for me, however. I used it when it was expensive (35% more pesos than Plus-X <g>) and it was ASA 200, pushable to 400.

 

My preference for HP5+ is that process it how I may, I find HP5+ has a longer toe. Also, it seems to take a sharper grain in HC-110, my usual soup -although I've been much pleased by Xtol these last few weeks.

 

Of course, both films are eminently tolerant of sloppy processing and over/underexposure. Both are also pushable to 1600 with quite decent results, but to 3200 in dire need.

[cabophoto]

Jorge,

 

what developer do you use for HP5+ at EI 1600 ?

 

Carsten (who loves Neopan 1600 in ID 11 stock)

[jeff_drew4]

Tri-X is also available most anywhere in the US.

[grant_.]

its cheap

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<I>Tri-X is also available most anywhere in the US.</I><P>Oddly, I went in

Duggal, a big pro lab in NYC, and they didn't have any TriX. Didn't even have

TMax 400. It was either PlusX or Ilford 3200. Tough choice, but I went with the

Ilford 3200.

[grant_.]

i didnt know duggal sold film....thought they were just a pro lab...

[r_quan]

Tri-X film was introduced in 1954.

Trix cereal was introduced the same year, as was the Leica M3.

Happy 50th!

[msitaraman]

Alas, Duggal's prices are about twice as high as B&H at West 33rd and 9th Ave.