Why I can't stop using Tri-X

[mabelsound]

The stuff is just amazing. It makes even the most banal vacation photos fascinating to look at. These were from my week at the Jersey Shore...just got back, souped the stuff in Rodinal 1:25 for 7 minutes, scanned, fiddled a bit in Lightroom.

This is my first try with Rodinal. It gives you a really different result from D76--I'm quite surprised at that. The grain is more prominent, and the pictures have a certain character.

All shot with the Bessa R4A and 50/2 Heliar Classic.

[Keith]

That Rodinal has a lot of character ... I've just started using it with HP5 which I hadn't used for a while and had previously developed it with D76. The Rodinal gives the Ilford more prominent grain similar to what I see in your pics ... it's a unique developer and takes a little getting used to but definitely gives results with bite!

[le vrai rdu]

trix and rodinal, a lovely couple I also use

I really like it

for outside picture I prefer 1+50 13 minutes, that give fantastics sky if there is clouds

[David R Munson]

I figure if it works, why fight it? Tri-X is a great film and incredibly versatile. I prefer it in HC-110 dilution G. I get results I like just as much out of Neopan 400, but it's not the same thing. Tri-X has a definite character.

[sanmich]

Tri-X is king

I soup it in Emofin with excellent results

[Ronald_H]

Tri-X is the reason for my own film renaissance. In Diafine is it woooonderful.

[telenous]

I like very much pulled TriX in Rodinal esp. for the brilliant (but not washed out) whites (lol sounds like an ad for a detergent). I don't use often the film that way but whenever I did it was a treat. It's with standard pushing that I 've always had problems with (mushy shadows in a variety of speed enhancing developers), so much so that I prefer HP5+ and Neopan 1600 for their nominal speeds and beyond. Rodinal in higher dilutions gives a moderate compensating effect with good acutance and you may circumvent the speed penalty with stand development. I 've seen some truly beautiful photos (sadly not mine) with this treatment.


.

[Arvay]

Silly question : is 400Tri-X same to 400TX?

[oftheherd]

Originally Posted by telenous

I like very much pulled TriX in Rodinal esp. for the brilliant (but not washed out) whites (lol sounds like an ad for a detergent). I don't use often the film that way but whenever I did it was a treat. It's with standard pushing that I 've always had problems with (mushy shadows in a variety of speed enhancing developers), so much so that I prefer HP5+ and Neopan 1600 for their nominal speeds and beyond. Rodinal in higher dilutions gives a moderate compensating effect with good acutance and you may circumvent the speed penalty with stand development. I 've seen some truly beautiful photos (sadly not mine) with this treatment.


.

Interesting. I haven't tried pushing either for a very long time. All I used was D-76 (all I had at the time). But my recollection was that Tri-X pushed better. HP5 was better drying. You just couldn't get water spots.

[Ronald_H]

After a few years of digital I got sorta bored. I did a lot of concert shooting back then and the transition from film to digital was very welcome. Not that film couldn't cut it, but processing, scanning and postprocessing, man, that ate up a lot of time. But digital got kinda boring and repetitive after a while.

I never managed to get the 'look' of earlier B/W concert work myself. So I bought a Nikon FM for fun and started shooting some B/W, but the lab was't very consistent in developing my film. So I ended up in forums like this one and learned about developing yourself. I made the jump and started with Diafine and Tri-X.

What I got was this, actually from my very first roll





Wildest dreams and all that

[planetjoe]

Originally Posted by Arvay

Silly question : is 400Tri-X same to 400TX?

Not a silly question; when manufacturers "reformulate" or change the name of a film emulsion, things can get quite confusing. When originally looking for this answer myself, I had trouble finding anything definitive. There have been some changes in developing times from the older emulsion (which I think used to be marked "5063" on the film edge), and perhaps a finer grain structure. Some say that the grain, which makes this emulsion what it is, in my opinion, is now less "gritty".

This thread on RFF tries to answer this question, too.

Bottom line is, aside from some different suggested development times, my understanding is that very little has changed (for the worse, at least). That's probably why folks that use 400TX still call it, "Tri-X". It's my understanding that there's a greater difference between the 135-size 400TX and the 120-size 320TXP (both "Tri-X") than there is between "old" and "new".

Hope that's not too obfuscating.


Cheers,
--joe.

[Arvay]

Originally Posted by planetjoe

Not a silly question; when manufacturers "reformulate" or change the name of a film emulsion, things can get quite confusing. When originally looking for this answer myself, I had trouble finding anything definitive. There have been some changes in developing times from the older emulsion (which I think used to be marked "5063" on the film edge), and perhaps a finer grain structure. Some say that the grain, which makes this emulsion what it is, in my opinion, is now less "gritty".

This thread on RFF tries to answer this question, too.

Bottom line is, aside from some different suggested development times, my understanding is that very little has changed (for the worse, at least). That's probably why folks that use 400TX still call it, "Tri-X". It's my understanding that there's a greater difference between the 135-size 400TX and the 120-size 320TXP (both "Tri-X") than there is between "old" and "new".

Hope that's not too obfuscating.


Cheers,
--joe.

Thanks, Joe

I really thought Tri-X is still being sold everywhere except here

[le vrai rdu]

TXP is different compared to trix 400 abit slower, not the same times of devellopement and a bit more nuances in the greys

[planetjoe]

Originally Posted by le vrai rdu

...a bit more nuances in the greys

Thanks, vrai; I've noticed that this fact is especially appropriate for its exclusive use as a medium-format emulsion - the results I've gotten from normally-exposed 320TXP are really fantastic.

My next step is to home-develop this film, which I've yet to do. Perhaps some dilute HC110 (dil H, for instance) would do nicely.


Cheers,
--joe.

[jan normandale]

Ummm I hate to tip my hand but I'm going to because I want to be sure there is a continued buying public creating demand for these films

I like Trix / 400 ISO and I dev it in HC110 : it's outstanding
I prefer TXP / 320 ISO and dev it in HC110 : its unbelieveable for fast BW
I love Acros / 100 ISO and dev it in Rodinal: it's probably the best BW ever

One caveat, all this is based on 120 film

Here's the Tri X / 400 in HC110 This is a '30%' low res version for the web....

[le vrai rdu]

B&W should always be processed at home, IMHO that is part of the picture

[le vrai rdu]

yes, across 100 and rodinal, it's fantastic

[dmr]

Silly rabbit, TriX is for kids!

[jan normandale]

Originally Posted by dmr

Silly rabbit, TriX is for kids!

LoL... DMR, you are right of course, however my keyboarding skills slip into shortcuts when I'm hanging out with the cognoscienti ;D

[Florian1234]

Here's one of my results of Tri-X (@rated speed 400) in Rodinal 1:50, 13 minutes. Scanned on Epson V500 without grain-reducing feature. Leica M4, Jupiter-8:

[nevin]

Originally Posted by Ronald_H

After a few years of digital I got sorta bored. I did a lot of concert shooting back then and the transition from film to digital was very welcome. Not that film couldn't cut it, but processing, scanning and postprocessing, man, that ate up a lot of time. But digital got kinda boring and repetitive after a while.

I never managed to get the 'look' of earlier B/W concert work myself. So I bought a Nikon FM for fun and started shooting some B/W, but the lab was't very consistent in developing my film. So I ended up in forums like this one and learned about developing yourself. I made the jump and started with Diafine and Tri-X.

What I got was this, actually from my very first roll

Wildest dreams and all that

They're wonderful pictures! Did you push it or just shoot Tri-X in 400?

[Nh3]

I agree, there is something about Trix which is hard to put into words.



Trix 400 + D76.

[planetjoe]

Originally Posted by jan normandale

I like Trix / 400 ISO and I dev it in HC110 : it's outstanding

Frighteningly detailed, Jan. Very nicely done. I would absolutely second your assessment of HC110 as the "proper" developer for Trix, and it even works in 135; this (also posted in another thread) was shot at EI3200, and souped in HC110h (1+63) for 25 minutes, low agitation:



I love this film; really.


Cheers,
--joe.

[jan normandale]

P-Joe, interesting subject. There's a similar flat iron building in Toronto by Union Station that looks like this one. It's a popular photographic subject and is a composite condo and hotel.

I've used HC110 at 1:100 for an hour stand dev'ing on film 200 - 400 ISO and it works much like this one of yours.

[planetjoe]

Originally Posted by jan normandale

P-Joe, interesting subject.

I think this, too, was a condo/hotel; I don't recall, as I was wandering aimlessly around Boston's Back Bay in the middle of the night.

Originally Posted by jan normandale

I've used HC110 at 1:100 for an hour stand dev'ing on film 200 - 400 ISO...

Ooh, now I have got to try that. I've been looking for something to make my Trix@400 sit up and bark. Dilution H does ok for normal EI, but I'd love to try your approach next.

You're literal about the "stand" bit, then; it's initial agitation and then nothing?


Cheers,
--joe.