Tri-X 320 and 400. What is the difference?

[parasko]

What is the difference between Tri-X 320 and 400 apart from ISO?

That is, do both films have similar characteristics, respond the same to various developers etc?

Secondly, is the 320 version only available in medium format or 35mm as well?

Thanks in advance.

[sienarot]

Tri-X 320 has less contrast than the 400. If I'm not mistaken, the 320 was intended to be a studio film.

[craygc]

As Derrick has said, Tri-X 320 is really a controlled lighting film and allows for retouching. As an outdoor film its not as well behaved as its 400 cousin. With 320 you tend to get compressed shadows and the highlights blow more easily. This film is really nice under controlled lighting conditions.

[parasko]

Cheers lads.

Sounds like I'll stick with 400 ISO.

[Trius]

I've done some nice work (well, to me at least) with TX320 4x5 outdoors, and millions of great shots have been made with TX320 on 120 stock.

Some slouch with the initials "AA" tried it in sheet film sizes, but it was an abject failure unless I'm mistaken. ...:p

[Al Kaplan]

It's the same emulsion as Tri-X sheet film. It is made in 120 and 220 and possibly still in 70mm and 90mm for long roll portrait cameras. I expect that it won't be around much longer. Not many people are shooting B&W studio portraits these days! It wasn't available in 35mm cassettes.

I don't recall it ever being individually boxed. Like Plus-X Professional 120 and 220 it was foil wrapped and sold in "Pro-Pack" boxes of 20 or 25 (?) rolls, although many dealers would sell single rolls.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

[Peter A (NYC)]

Years ago it was my favorite B&W film.

[David R Munson]

Tri-X 400 and Tri-X Pan 320 are totally distinct emulsions. Rather different looks, different quirks, etc. I love both and have shot a ton of both of them. Off the top of my head I do not know how to articulate the difference in look. Best way to understand the difference is to test both in your own working methods and compare results. I will likely continue to shoot both emulsions as long as they are available (hopefully as long as I am shooting!)

TXP 320 is only available in roll film and sheet film sizes.

An example shot on TXP 320 with a Mamiya 645:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/18/70791661_01acbc9922_o.jpg

[Trius]

As David said, they're different, and that is the reason one needs to test and make adjustments. I recall making seperate personal EI tests and dev time tests for 35mm and 4x5. Never assume that whst is precisely right for one emulsion is also correct for something with the same name/label; to some extent names are marketing.

I haven't seriously used TX 4x5 in years, so would need to repeat my tests and recalibrate. Anyone have a spare transmission densitometer? :D

[skibeerr]

The two last portraits I posted in "the ultimat bokeh thread" where done on Tri-x dev. in x-tol

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2494/3911980603_69fb2e2a72.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wim_b/3911980603/)

I remember using 220 rolls of tri-x 320 in my Bronica rf shooting on the street in NYC, at the time I was realy pleased but now they seem coarse and grainy,

I like the look of the 400 better.

Cheers,

Wim

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2548/3902915097_999cbcd49a.jpg