PDA

View Full Version : Please Help Tmax 400 or Tri-X?


anaanda
12-15-2006, 06:35
Hi All,
I am going on a long trip on Sunday and want to choose one film. I have decided on the speed of 400 for versatility but I can't decide which one to use. Please tell your experiences with these films, Tmax 400, Tri-x 400 ,Hp5 and Delta 400. Their characteristics, positives, negatives.
Thanks

35mmdelux
12-15-2006, 06:38
will you be using a ND filter?

Trius
12-15-2006, 06:57
My experience recently is limited, there are others who will probably have more insight, but ...

Tri-X and HP5 share a lot of similarities; I prefer Tri-X slightly (more pleasing grain structure for my taste), but I've seen some HP5 work here and elsewhere that I really, really like. Both are easier to process, IMO, than the Delta/Tmax films.

Delta & Tmax are pickier on exposure and processing, but tonality is different. "Smoother" look when done right mostly due to the tabular grain structure.

On a trip I'd go for Tri-X or HP5 since you can't reshoot, and also because you don't have time to experiment with the others. JMO.

Edit: I shoot Tri-X @ 200 or 250.

boilerdoc2
12-15-2006, 07:00
Tmax 400 for sure. Fine fine grain. Smooth tones. Only caveat is to process it properly. Best is Xtol. Have fun....
Steve

35mmdelux
12-15-2006, 07:03
Edit: I shoot Tri-X @ 200 or 250.


Interesting. Shoot at 200 and ramp it up when needed. Thanks.

Finder
12-15-2006, 07:07
I definately prefer Tmax over Tri-X. Tmax has better grain, tonality, and latitude. My second choice would be HP5, there again, better than Tri-X - unless you like the Tri-X look.

lZr
12-15-2006, 07:09
I do my Tmax in Kodak developer 1:4 dilution. Tmax is generally less contrasty relative to Trix 400. Both can be pushed up 3 stops and developed. If you go in Europe, take TriX. If you go to places with more harsh light, take Tmax.
If you are software dependent take either and go. Good luck

markinlondon
12-15-2006, 07:15
Tri-x or HP5. IMO there's no contest, TMY and Delta don't respond well to overexposure in the way Tri-x or HP5 do so doesn't pull nicely in bright conditions. I've never pushed TMY because I didn't even like it at box speed. If I had to choose one film forever Tri-x or HP5 would be my choice depending on price and availability.

varjag
12-15-2006, 07:18
Right, Tri-X. TMY is nice and less grainy, but tri-x is forgiving, looks great and works fine in about any developer.

anaanda
12-15-2006, 07:19
will you be using a ND filter?


no Nd filter, I just bought a Hasselblad and a Rolleiflex (I know they are not rangefinders), I don't have time to pick up any filters. I wanted to do medium format on this trip..

Todd.Hanz
12-15-2006, 07:27
I haven't shot Tmax 400 in years but I think it has a slightly smoother grain, I really like Tri-X for it's versatility and wide tonal range. Here are a couple images.

Tri-X rated at 100, developed in D76 1:1
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=50627&cat=500&ppuser=489

Tri-X rated at 800 developed in Xtol 1:1
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=35623&cat=500&ppuser=489

IMHO, Tri-X is the best all around film for a variety of situations, especially when you don't know what the light will be. Tri-X is also probably the most available, I can pick a roll up at most grocery stores or walgreens, CVS, etc.

Good Luck!
Todd

Todd.Hanz
12-15-2006, 07:34
no Nd filter, I just bought a Hasselblad and a Rolleiflex (I know they are not rangefinders), I don't have time to pick up any filters. I wanted to do medium format on this trip..


In that case I'd take Tri-X for sure, it really shines in 120 where grain is not as much an issue.

Tri-X at 200
http://my-expressions.com/up_media/1108/pblog/7438/1164924897.jpg

and at 400
http://my-expressions.com/up_media/1108/pblog/7438/0__1159373695.jpg

both with taken a rolleiflex on Tri-X.

Todd

anaanda
12-15-2006, 07:45
Todd-
Thanks for the input...

3js
12-15-2006, 10:37
Tri-x or HP5. IMO there's no contest, TMY and Delta don't respond well to overexposure in the way Tri-x or HP5 do so doesn't pull nicely in bright conditions. I've never pushed TMY .
My experience is totally opposite of yours, TMax 400 is by far the best film to handle overexposure, no contest here, i`m afraid. You just have to know how to use it. I shoot around 200 films a year, mostly old rangefinders, and the shutters arenīt quite what they used to be 50 years ago... So I feed them T-max 400, and I can make a decent print out of even a 2 stop overexposured shot. Now with Tri-X that would be a pain in the, well you know where..

Dracotype
12-15-2006, 10:40
I would second Todd. Tri-X is pretty much one of the most versitile films around. I like its very long tonal scale and delicate tones. The grain, to my eyes, is very acceptable. Very forgiving.

To me, HP5 is too grainy sometimes. TMX is a bit to crisp for my liking. A little colder in tone than Tri-X. Haven't really tried Delta 400. Delta 100 is really nice, but you didn't ask about that one.

Drew

pau3
12-15-2006, 11:29
All of them are good. Just choose one and stick to it. But if I had to choose,
I would go for Tri-X,

varjag
12-15-2006, 11:29
So I feed them T-max 400, and I can make a decent print out of even a 2 stop overexposured shot. Now with Tri-X that would be a pain in the, well you know where..
Tri-X can handle more than that :)

tkluck
12-15-2006, 12:55
Tri-X. More forgiving with new equipment and once-in-a-lifetime vacation shooting. Experiment with Tmax when you get back.

35mmdelux
12-15-2006, 13:00
I'm no BW expert but HP-5 is really sweet. Very smooth.

Russ
12-15-2006, 13:06
Neither one. Fuji Neopan 400, blows them both away. And if I couldn't use the Neopan 400, I'd go with Ilfords Delta 400.

Russ

markinlondon
12-15-2006, 13:07
My experience is totally opposite of yours, TMax 400 is by far the best film to handle overexposure, no contest here, i`m afraid. You just have to know how to use it. I shoot around 200 films a year, mostly old rangefinders, and the shutters arenīt quite what they used to be 50 years ago... So I feed them T-max 400, and I can make a decent print out of even a 2 stop overexposured shot. Now with Tri-X that would be a pain in the, well you know where..

And that just goes to show the benefit of experience and how the empirical method allows one to find one's own preferences. I'm sure we'll agree to disagree on this one, 3js. Different strokes and all that...

Nachkebia
12-15-2006, 13:10
I would not leave house without Delta 100 :)

markinlondon
12-15-2006, 13:13
I would not leave house without Delta 100 :)

Ah, now you're talking about the only new-tech film I do like. Leica glass and D100 is mind-blowing even with my lousy technique.

Nachkebia
12-15-2006, 13:21
I think delta is magical, even though it is new grain stuff, it can get very classy!

3js
12-15-2006, 13:32
Tri-X can handle more than that :)

No, it can't, if you want a decent print, as the results of a two stop over will be grainy as h*ll. :)

varjag
12-15-2006, 13:32
Neither one. Fuji Neopan 400, blows them both away. And if I couldn't use the Neopan 400, I'd go with Ilfords Delta 400.
Delta 400 is nice too :) Just finished a 100' roll of it last week. Can't say however it blows Tri-X away in any respect other than graininess. And at normal dilutions (below 1:100) of Rodinal, Delta 400 is horrible.. TX is great in everything :)

It is hard to go really wrong with any of the films mentioned though.

varjag
12-15-2006, 13:52
No, it can't, if you want a decent print, as the results of a two stop over will be grainy as h*ll. :)
I admit I have low standards when it comes to grain :) To me other factors take priority, like, having actually something printable in highlights.

The shot below is 400TX pushed to 1600. Despite the push (which doesn't help contrast) it was still possible to recover the image from that huge plasma panel behind the people. I didn't measure exact difference in EV, but am confident there were many: it was murky evening and the monitor was so bright you nearly squint looking at it.

traveller
12-15-2006, 14:47
Only one film........
TriX, everything already said

Trius
12-15-2006, 16:43
No, it can't, if you want a decent print, as the results of a two stop over will be grainy as h*ll. :)
If so, then you don't know how to treat it. Tastes may vary, so please keep that in mind as well.

Trius
12-15-2006, 16:56
I would have to agree that Neopan is a very good option. Availability is an issue; aside from that, after TX it would be my other choice, and I could get VERY comfortable with it.

Turtle
12-15-2006, 17:28
TriX. Xtol or D76. Reasonable grain, forgiving and calssical tones. Gives decent speed in Xtol (I rate at 320)

anaanda
12-15-2006, 18:57
Thanks for all the replies. i guess I could take a little of everything! but then I'll have to choice once I get to my destination...Unfortunately I haven't experimented enough with any of these films, It seems most people lean towards Tri-X as all around best. I do like all the films I mentioned in different ways, its just choosing the way that is tough

PHOTOEIL
12-16-2006, 01:09
If you live in the USA take Tri-X, if in Europe then HP5+, as a mather of principle, but they are both verry good in X-tol stock IMHO...
Good luck on your trip :) !

Benjamin Marks
12-16-2006, 04:22
I shot nothing but Delta 400, processed in XTOL for five years and love the combo. Delta has the fine-T grain advantages of TMAX, but is not as demanding as TMAX in terms of processing consistency. You can get great results with all of the films you listed; but you have to know what each film is going to do when you press the shutter button. About a year ago (when Freestyle dropped their off-label version of Delta 400), I switched to Neopan. It has a more pronounced grain structure than Delta 400, but I find it very pleasing. I also have been using Patrick Gainer's Vitamin C developer, which gives a little more grain than XTOL.

FWIW, I think that Tri-X will be the last b&w film standing (rank prediction . . . no inside knowledge) and so if you were standardizing on one film for the foreseeable future, Tri-X would be a good choice, IMHO.

Ben Marks

Richard Black
12-16-2006, 05:04
When you said medium format, that sealed it. Tri-X! It is incredibile and the grain of the new formula is exceptional. I have use HP-5 and it is soooo close, but TriX is a bit cheaper. I love its tonality and since your lenses should stop down to f22, light shouldn't be too much of a problem. Enjoy!

Turtle
12-16-2006, 05:46
My issue with Delta 400 is its speed...I find it slower than TriX and HP5 by a good half stop is not more.

Whilst Neopan 400 is a decent film, in side to sides against TriX and Hp5+ I find it has less smooth tonal transitions. I remember seeing this commented in a film test in a mag years back and thought the test was prob at fault but what do I find when compared beside TrIX? The same thing. New Tri X does give it a run for its money in grain terms and to my eyes has a far smoother tonal scale and more classical look. Neopan makes great speed tho and has a super clear film base for short print times. Dont get me wrong I think it is a good film, but TriX to me is more subtle when you want it to be and has better acutance. Neopan is a bit soft to my eyes.

Benjamin Marks
12-16-2006, 06:05
Tri-X in MF is a wonderful emulsion. I think there are two versions of this emulsion, one is a "pro" version that is rated 320 by Kodak, and the two emulsions do indeed have different curves, or at least they used to. I have had great results from both. The jump in quality that you get going up a film size has always seemed to me to be much more dramatic than between, say, brands of camera or lens within the same film format. Have a great trip!

Ben Marks

SDK
12-16-2006, 06:29
I may be a heretic, but I much prefer the look of BW400CN (replacement for T400CN) C-41 black and white film to the traditional silver negative films. It is far smoother in tonality and has far higher resolution than any of the silvergrain films. I used to be a big fan of Tmax 400 (and Tmax 3200P for low light work) and ascorbate deverlopers, but the chromagenic films are more forgiving of overexposure, and have the low graininess of 100 ISO silvergrain films despite being 4X faster. Also they are more convenient for me, since a pro lab can develop the negatives, so I only have to worry about printing the images.

dspeltz
12-16-2006, 07:31
I shoot Tri-X at 200 for (35mm and 120, 320 for 4x5 version). This gives me a good .10 density above fog and emulsion for Zone I -- and developed in HC110B (development time you have to determine based on your enlarger or scanner). Total range is smooth, good blacks, good detail in lower zones, nice whites, excellent contrast, excellent sharpness and I just scanned Tri-x developed this way 30 years ago and they look like new. I do not like Tri-X at 400, however. On the other hand I am getting old and do not adapt to change well. Ansel Adams used this film and developer but I bet he would be experimenting with new approaches if he were alive. But this works for me. And I can find Tri-X easily.

I may try some other methods as I watch this thread.

Northern_Bliss
12-16-2006, 09:16
I have been using Tri-x (120) rated @200 asa and pull processed in Kodak XTol dev. 1:1 for some time now with excellent results.

Using 35mm film (rarely now) I would use the slower tabular grain films such as Delta 100 or Fuji Acros, but for more speed in 35mm format, if I had to choose I would go for the TMY over the tri-x simply for the reason of reduced grain.

3js
12-16-2006, 09:27
If so, then you don't know how to treat it. Tastes may vary, so please keep that in mind as well.

Would you please read my hole message with thougt. I would be very, very pleased if you just tell me how to do it. Keep in mind that you donīt know that youīre doing two stops over.... So pulling is out of question. And I`m not going to do that Farmerīs stuff:)

I was just trying to say that the T-Max 400 is very forgiving film for unwanted overexposures. Tri-x is a great film and I use it alot, but they differ in this quite alot, and Iīm not speaking pushing/pulling, which means a different thing.

ruben
01-22-2007, 02:24
Very clear issue for me.
Tri-X and Tmax are not exclusive one or the other but complementary:

For a bright day or camera mounted flash: Tri-x for its great rendition of whites tones besides the dark ones. With Tmax in such situations you will near disaster. Tmax is rather for studio controlled light, but still usable in the following case:

For cloudy day, or non contrasty situations: Tmax, as you will enjoy fine grain without paying the penalty.

For unexpected ISO 1600: Neopan1600, but without it, the closer will be pushing Tmax.

For unexpected ISO 200 or 100: Tri-x. At 100 Tri-x reaches its peak of beauty and low grain.

In conclusion, first and meticulous choice will be to take both with you. If only one, then Tri-x is the more all inclusive film.

Hope this helps,
Cheers,
Ruben

Nachkebia
01-22-2007, 03:00
T max 400 - Modern grain, lovely shadows if you play with it
Tri- x - Classic grain, elegat tones if you play around
HP5 - Classic grain, excellent shadows (deepest I have ever seen) excellent night shooter
Delta 400 - Modern grain, great high key, I don`t like delta 400 :)

david b
01-23-2007, 06:53
It's only a matter of time before Kodak sells off it's film division and all hell breaks loose. Just use Ilford.

varjag
01-26-2007, 14:02
It's only a matter of time before Kodak sells off it's film division and all hell breaks loose. Just use Ilford.
Many of us are into film for its individual look. If the point is just to stick to a product that's here for good, wouldn't it make more sense to go digital?

dadsm3
01-26-2007, 14:09
Tmax and Tri-X are different animals.....sometimes when I see a Tmax100 shot here it's so smooth and grainless I think it's taken with an RD-1 or M8. Beautiful film....and I just do it in Rodinol with pretty consistent results, but I'm not into pushin' and pullin' (well, not in the darkroom anyways).
But for a classic looking low-light portraiture you can't beat Tri-X AFAIC.

Trius
01-29-2007, 13:42
Would you please read my hole [sic] message with thougt. I would be very, very pleased if you just tell me how to do it. Keep in mind that you donīt know that youīre doing two stops over.... So pulling is out of question. And I`m not going to do that Farmerīs stuff:)

I was just trying to say that the T-Max 400 is very forgiving film for unwanted overexposures. Tri-x is a great film and I use it alot, but they differ in this quite alot, and Iīm not speaking pushing/pulling, which means a different thing.
Dilute compensating developer, reduced agitation, which is my regular routine. If necessary, soft paper, a #1 with water bath development usually works. Haven't gotten into the PS thing yet. :D

Edit: Thanks for the tip on TMax 400 overexposure. I find the 400BW to have a hard limit on overexposure, at least for my tastes. So that TMX is different is interesting. Right, they're not the same film at all, but both are T-grain. My results with 400BW are that 200 is too much, 250 is about right, 320 can work. 400 is too thin for most shots.

Ewoud
02-25-2007, 12:20
All good options here,

My current fav is tri-x 400 at 250iso and developed in Perceptol 1+1, 12 mins...

But I've had great results with Neopan 400, and HP5 aswell.

I'm not really into delta and t-max, but thats just a matter of taste. I've seen them put to great efford countless times.

jlw
03-03-2007, 17:47
The formula is simple: T-Max for flat indoor light and Tri-X for hard indoor light.

Tri-X has more gradation in the highlights. It was designed back when most public spaces were still lit by incandescent lights. That meant there were small pools of bright light, fading away into darkness. The tone curve of Tri-X was designed so you could hold detail in the light areas near the lamps without losing shadow detail in the darker areas. The same scene photographed on T-Max would look more like "soot and chalk," with too-hard highlights and too-dark shadows.

T-Max 400 has more contrast in the highlights. It was designed more recently, by which time most public spaces were lit by fluorescent lamps. These produce broad, even light with few deep shadows but also with very little directionality or shape. T-Max's harder tone curve hardens up the highlight areas so fluorescent-lit scenes look a bit snappier. The same scene photographed on Tri-X would look gray and flat, as if it had been dipped in mud.

So, which one to take on a trip? Depends on what kinds of spaces you're going to be visiting...

jrhem
03-09-2007, 09:26
I am looking for your original post on overexposed TMX 400. But cant find it. I am working at the moment with this problem. Can you send me that post? [email protected]

colyn
04-12-2007, 19:40
Tri-X is my long time favorite.. HP5 is also a good film but T-Max is very unforgiving of simple processing errors so I never use it..

vrgard
04-13-2007, 11:20
Hey Wes, can you elaborate on the picture you posted above? I understand from your posting that it was taken with Plus-X. But can you explain further about the left-hand versus right-hand portions of the image?

Thanks,
Randy

MelanieC
04-13-2007, 15:18
I was a die-hard Tri-X user until I realized that Neopan 400 canisters are WAY easier to open with my teeth for home developing purposes. The metal is a lot thinner. You could probably run over a Tri-X canister with a truck and nothing would happen to it, which is nice for travel purposes but makes it almost impossible to get the damn tops off in the dark. The Neopan canisters deform really easily if you squeeze them a bit with your back teeth and then the tops pop right off.

But I digress. I really like both of these films. I variably use a handheld incident meter, an on-board incident meter (on the Rollei), or no meter at all and have very very few shots that are not satisfactory exposure-wise. I don't print my own so I judge my satisfaction with negatives based on how well they scan on my crappy flatbed scanner and how little fussing around they require in Photoshop. In this sense I like Neopan 400 best of all -- I hardly have to do anything to my Neopan negatives. But I don't know how they'd print.

I recently used TMax (in 120) for the first time and I hate it. The scans are flat and terrible and practically impossible to make look like I want them to look in Photoshop. I attached two examples to illustrate this. The first one is Tri-X 400, the second one TMax 400. Both were taken with the same camera (Rollei) using the on-board meter, of the same dog, in similar lighting circumstances in basically the same place (but different days -- OK, so I take the same photos over and over again, shoot me). Besides the fact that I focused on his ass instead of his face in the second photo (oops) these look totally different to me. In addition, the first one required very little post-processing, and the second took a lot of flogging and still didn't end up any better than you see it.

I guess TMax has its virtues but my reaction to it is "yuck."

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/158/419107334_9d270d1053_o.jpg
Tri-X 400

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g238/SoloRiver/solo_ggp_0307_5.jpg
TMax 400

dadsm3
04-13-2007, 18:46
That's not a fair comparison Melanie. I don't understand people who say Tmax400 is crap. Don't get me wrong, Tri-X is still my fave, but Tmax is a nice change once in a while.
I don't find it finicky at all to develop. This is an M3 and 90mm V1 Summicron, 1/[email protected], in Rodinol 1+50 for 10 minutes.

easyrider
04-13-2007, 18:46
I think in the second one, the dog was tired of having his picture taken..LOL

Doug
04-13-2007, 23:21
Looks to me like the T Max 400 has very little "toe"... the darker tones transition quickly to black. Melanie's Tri-X dog shot has much richer shadows. I wonder if and how it might help to give the T Max more exposure and less development; maybe it just gets dull?

Sisyphus
05-06-2007, 19:41
tri-x it is so versatile:

Contrasty desert scenes overexpose by one stop underdevelop by one stop to a stop in a half, you will retain shadow without blocking up highlights.

Cloudy rainy weather, underexpose by one stop, overdevelop by one stop or slightly more, you will extend your midtones, and shadow areas.

Process it in Rodinal, you will win a pultizer!

Night scenes got you down, no problem, leica m, 35mm 1.4 lens, tri-x 1000asa, expose normal, process it in accufine at 70 for 5 minutes, another pulitzer!

it is endless!

Portraits, rate it at 250, process in rodinal, 1:50, you just had the most amazing wet dream in your life!

Ok, I got to stop, I am getting really horny now!

alexz
06-27-2007, 12:00
tri-x it is so versatile:

Contrasty desert scenes overexpose by one stop underdevelop by one stop to a stop in a half, you will retain shadow without blocking up highlights.

Cloudy rainy weather, underexpose by one stop, overdevelop by one stop or slightly more, you will extend your midtones, and shadow areas.

Process it in Rodinal, you will win a pultizer!

Night scenes got you down, no problem, leica m, 35mm 1.4 lens, tri-x 1000asa, expose normal, process it in accufine at 70 for 5 minutes, another pulitzer!

it is endless!

Portraits, rate it at 250, process in rodinal, 1:50, you just had the most amazing wet dream in your life!

Ok, I got to stop, I am getting really horny now!

Just out of curiosity: do you process your Tri-X in Rodinal no matter a which speed it was shot ? (i.e. 400 or slower) or only if you exposed it at slower then its nominal (which is 400) ? I'm quite a newbie into B&W, so far learning the virtues of Tri-X in HC-110, but heard Rodinal is good for slower films (200 and downwards)...

John Bragg
07-19-2007, 12:03
I voted for Tri-X, but I equally like Neopan 400. They are interchangeable as far as I am concerned. I even develop them for the same time in HC-110. Both 9 minutes at 20c in dilution H.

julio1fer
07-19-2007, 17:08
Unfortunately I haven't experimented enough with any of these films

Then go for traditional emulsions (HP5, Tri-X or Neopan 400). They are easier to process, more forgiving emulsions, incredible latitude in D-76 or HC-110.

Only drawback, they may be harder to scan well because of larger grain.

If you are going to (mostly) scan consider a C-41 B&W such as Ilford XP2 or Kodak BW400CN (or whatever its current name is). They would be my personal choice for travel, because it is so easy to have the occasional roll processed on location and see how it is coming along.

rui
11-23-2007, 13:47
I'd go for the Tri-X, but it's clearly a matter of personal taste. I love its grain and latitude. Usually, I develop it with Tmax developer (1+4) unless I want the extra grain Rodinal provides. :)

kipkeston
11-23-2007, 14:17
My favorite is Tri-X because it pushes to 2000 or 3200 really really well.

Leighgion
03-07-2008, 12:04
I'm new to B&W with my first two rolls of Tri-X loaded in a two reel tank not yet developed, but as I'll offer an opinion anyway.

If you've got to think this hard about it, just take the Tri-X and be happy.

The way I see it, the strengths & weaknesses of different emulsions are really only worth considering if you have a clear idea of what you're facing/wanting. Without a clear idea, all the thinking and suggestions in the world isn't going to get you anywhere.

Tri-X has hung around since time began, so obviously it has a lot going for it.
If you don't end up liking the results you get and honestly think the difference is in the emulsion, well, live and learn, but I don't really see it's going to get figured out from thinking under these circumstances.

myoptic3
03-18-2008, 19:23
57301I think you have been misinformed. There ARE no other B&W 400 speed films other than Tr-X and HP5 (well, none worth shooting anyway). See enclosed image. If it ain't got grain, it ain't B&W.

myoptic3
03-18-2008, 19:30
One more, just to illustrate HP5 grain. I love this film.

Stephanie Brim
03-18-2008, 19:54
Tri-X or HP5 is what I generally use in a 400 speed. I push it really good sometimes, too.

thomasw_
03-18-2008, 21:02
trix @ 250 or 200 in rodinal 50+1 -- I find this look so full and rich; i love the dark shadows as they fade quickly to coal black. Creamy whites....fading to the shadows, again to coal black.

That said, some of the finest BW work that I follow on RFF or FLickr has been done by my friend, a RFF member named Telenous; and he uses HP5+ for virtually all of his low light shooting. Though, at bottom, I believe that what the photographer does with the subject/exposure/film/developer is only instrumental, for the sublimity of much Alkis' work transcends my attachment to a certain film or developer.

Chris101
03-18-2008, 23:02
Trix is just about the best all around film, and it's slightly cheaper than the other choices. No matter what, you will be able to get an image from any exposure, although as has been stated, too far off, and it will get crazy grain.

Speaking of grain, the most beautiful grain, and thus images will come from Delta 400. I love this film, but it's half again as expensive as trix, and you will need to hit about that much closer to the perfect exposure. If you underexpose, it will block. Both films will print or scan very nicely if exposed within a stop. I like delta 3200 for ALL my night shooting. If it's bright, pull it back to 1600, and the grain will look just like trix, only it will be more uniform.

HP5 is ok, and I know nothing about tmax, as I never use it. I have seen some very nice work with both of those, but my films are efke 25 for slow stuff, delta 100 for controlled lighting, trix in the camera for 'walk around', delta 400 for projects, delta 3200 at night. I develop everything in hc110 dilution b or h, or D76 if somebody else mixes it, or coffee if I am in a mood.

ibcrewin
03-19-2008, 09:22
I think he ended up using tmax 400. I saw it on his flickr.

bwaysteve
03-19-2008, 13:28
Go with Trix rated 200.Shot 60 rolls in Europe recently and has that 50's look.Nice tonality.If you think larger for your end result,Delta 100 @iso50 to make a 30x40.I normally shoot people and expose for Zone VI skin.I usually have the lab develop at 6min.
Check my website under gallery steverileypictures.com

philipp.leser
02-24-2009, 10:09
I was a die-hard Tri-X user until I realized that Neopan 400 canisters are WAY easier to open with my teeth for home developing purposes.

This is probably the best film comparison ever!

(I love Neopan 400, too.)

mh2000
02-24-2009, 10:39
I am a long time lover of Tri-X, but TMY-II is simply spectacular. Yes, TX is nicer at 250 than at 400, but why are you choosing a 400 speed film to shoot at 250??? In a pinch, TMY can be exposed at 800 with no change to developting. TX has a great classic signature, but it isn't always the best choice for everything, TMY is very very smooth and has great rich tonality... simply one of the most beautiful emulsions I've used (and I've used all on your list).

That said, you can get great results with any of your choices... have fun!

mh2000
02-24-2009, 10:40
PS Delta pushes really well in Xtol.

Merkin
02-24-2009, 11:41
For the majority of my life, HP5 was pretty much all I shot, and I still love it as a go-to film for daytime shooting when I don't know what I will encounter.

For medium format work, I have never gotten better results than I have gotten with Ilford Delta 100, it is super meaty in its tonality and depth, and might as well be grainless. I have never used Delta 400 though.

I don't like Tmax, but this is basically just a personal choice. Any time I have found myself considering Tmax, I have found that HP5 is what I really want.

I love Tri-x for its versatility and vintage look. During the day, rate it at 400 and develop it in D76 or whatever standard developer you like. At night or in low light, rate the roll at 1250 or 1600 and develop it in Diafine.

With the C41 process bw400cn, rate the film at 200 iso instead of 400 iso, particularly if you are shooting 35mm and getting it processed at your local drugstore. You will get much better results.

Benjamin
02-24-2009, 11:50
I think that it would really help Thee World, if you go with the Ilford stuff.

I originally started to use HP5+ because it's available, but I've grown to know and respect it.

I know nothing of Tri-X, other than the fact that Kodak don't have to care like Ilford do. They can't do anything else. And I believe that they will still make decent black and white negative film when Kodak throws it's other leg onto the bandwagon.

I don't mind if people even shoot it, just buy it. Ilford Photo are good dudes.

mh2000
02-24-2009, 20:46
Kodak is in a world of hurt and they still recently released an updated TMY, that says something... and really, I do think it is the best ISO 400 speed film ever made, probably that ever will be made. Sure, I like the vintage look of other older films... and use them when I specifically want a vintage look, but I don't think anyone should slam Kodak when they are still improving their b&w products in the current environment...

I think for the most part, everyone that slams Tmax films didn't read the instructions on how to develop it... thinking that it should be treated exactly like some other old film they've used for years. Tmax films need lots of aggitation and need to rinse for a while before the purple goes away, other than that they have the most latitude of any b&w film IMO and the best tonality and finest grain for speed, this has been reported in most independant film tests as well... and they work superbly with stand developing as well.

Melvin
02-24-2009, 20:58
I was in Europe recently and could only find HP5 where I was(not xxx). It turned out great. However it seems more delicate than xxx. I managed to damage the emulsion on a couple frames getting them on the reel.

sanmich
03-15-2009, 08:42
In that case I'd take Tri-X for sure, it really shines in 120 where grain is not as much an issue.

Tri-X at 200
http://my-expressions.com/up_media/1108/pblog/7438/1164924897.jpg

and at 400
http://my-expressions.com/up_media/1108/pblog/7438/0__1159373695.jpg

both with taken a rolleiflex on Tri-X.

Todd

second that

the difference in grain size is so unimportant in 120 that it's a no brainer for me. Take the easiest film, the most forgiving one..

35photo
03-17-2009, 07:53
My vote would be a film that's not on the list. Fuji Neopan 400, great tones, and pretty cheap can't get any better than that!

Marko

Vics
03-17-2009, 09:09
I voted for Tri-X because after a lot of experimenting, I like it best, but I wouldn't CONSIDER taking anything on a long trip that I'm not already used to. Take the film and cameras with you that you've been shooting with. I'd think that old maxim still holds up pretty well.
Vic

KenD
03-17-2009, 18:20
Don't buy a new film on the basis of anyone's or everyone's recommendation for a long trip. Use a film you know and trust! (and like too!)

navilluspm
03-20-2009, 09:10
I don't think the OP needs anymore recommendations for her trip. She wrote it in 2006!!! BUt I guess we can still discuss ther merits of the question Tmax or TriX

NickTrop
03-20-2009, 09:19
Tri-X for simple reasons. If you're new to black and white, Tri-X (esp. if you're developing yourself...). It's kinda like D76 if you're developing. Start w/ D76, then wonk around with other developers. Start your black and white experience with good ole Tri-X, the "standard", then work your way out toward different film (/developer) combos. A good, practical reason is it's very forgiving - and it's not like it doesn't look good. This is especially true in medium format.

italy74
06-20-2009, 10:46
Sorry for the silly questions
1) I see most of you overexpose by 2/3 - 1 stop the 400 iso. When you go to develop, you of course calculate for it, that is just a trick to have a finer grain or what?

2) if I'd ask the same question for FAST B/W film, which among Neopan 1600, T-Max 3200 and Delta 3200 would be the most forgiving roll with the smoother tones, keeping fine grain as LESS important here in the equation? I have experienced a terrible trend of T-max 3200 to have whites completely lost already at + 0.5 / +1 as well blacks too deep within -1 EV. Sometimes I'd like them, sometimes I'd like a more forgiving roll.

What's your opinion here - without stealing the post to the OP ?

lawrence
06-20-2009, 15:30
2) if I'd ask the same question for FAST B/W film, which among Neopan 1600, T-Max 3200 and Delta 3200 would be the most forgiving roll with the smoother tones, keeping fine grain as LESS important here in the equation?

Here are examples of all three films, followed by my own opinion of them:

This was shot on Delta 3200 rated at 1600:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2382/1750654336_2513cbf517.jpg

This was shot on P3200 rated at 1600:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/108/295737483_4814bca147.jpg

And finally Neopan 1600 rated at 800:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2092/2054065801_b86954ddf2.jpg

My own take on these films is that Delta 3200 is the fastest (in other words it has the most shadow detail) but personally I find it a bit flat. It just doesn't have a great range of tones and the grain is rather ugly. P3200 is tonally very nice and has beautiful grain, albeit rather large. I think its true speed is about 1000. Neopan 1600 is nothing like 1600 in real life -- see the lack of detail in the jacket? In fact I can't see much difference between Neopan 400 and 1600.

Now here's Tri-X at 1600:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3360/3310053204_8b7c01a9ba.jpg

I'd be the first to admit that this isn't a scientific test but in my view Tri-X is as fast as Neopan 1600 -- or faster -- if you push it a bit. Certainly I think that Tri-X is a true 400 film and I cannot understand why anyone would want to under-rate it. For example:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/84/234092766_c4c55a4bc6_o.jpg

If there's something wrong with the tones here, please let me know what it is!

charjohncarter
06-20-2009, 20:20
I always shoot at 250 with HC-110 ala Ansel Adams. But I have to say your TriX images is good: 400 or pushed?

Chris101
06-20-2009, 21:35
Hey Dino, I can't really argue with Lawrence's analytical comparison, but I just like the look of Delta 3200 pulled to 1600 in HC110 dilution h, using minimal agitation. That's 22 minutes at 20°, agitating for 10 seconds every 3 minutes. P3200 has always struck me as kinda blocky.

italy74
06-20-2009, 23:09
Hi guys
thanks for your replies. If I have to tell the truth, Tri-X at 1600 is what really impressed me. Something that I couldn't have expressed correctly is:
Usually I shoot at the rated aperture (my "fault"), thus rolls are developed and printed according to this. When it happens I have a shot done at +1 or -1 of course I DON'T develop all the roll for it and hope the emulsion is however enough "strong" to deal with it: "Ok" - I think - "I'll have a clearer/brighter or darker image but I expect details (at least a bit) to be there". Still, I have a crucifix appended to a white wall of a church which covers most of frame -where I have overexposed a bitnot to have a large grey wall - which looks "flying" (well, in this case it could be considered "artistic") Still, shadows on people jackets down (I was shooting from an elevated position) are too deeps and dark to be useful. I'm not Koudelka with his "dwarf old woman" who looks emerging from the shadows of the road...

Another point that I haven't expressed correctly.. keep in mind I give my b/w prints to a lab so I have to rely only on their "standard" work to develop the whole roll, I don't do them by myself ( I honestly haven't the space for it in home, at least not with my wife in the same flat )

Lawrence, just a curioisty.. the man in the 1st picture is Sting or a sosia?

Bill58
06-20-2009, 23:25
NONE of the above--Lucky 100!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrs111445/3639727195/sizes/l/

italy74
06-20-2009, 23:30
Bill, to be honest, aside the reportage style of the image, which is for sure the strongest thing one can note (and I can only imagine how much you were in a rush to take it - I wouldn't have got it for sure in such chaos), I find it a bit too dark, especially on the bottom part. I'd be glad to see even a "calmer" image where you can prove a wider exposure latitude of the roll you used, thanks again.

lawrence
06-21-2009, 00:36
Lawrence, just a curioisty.. the man in the 1st picture is Sting or a sosia?
Yes, it is Sting.

Personally I do develop my films in a small flat and it doesn't take up much space at all -- no need for a darkroom. You can use a daylight loading tank -- made by Jobo -- or else a changing bag with a conventional stainless steel or Paterson tank. It really isn't that difficult and the the experience of seeing your negatives come out exactly as you developed them is highly rewarding. Other flat-dwellers can be sold the idea on the basis that it's a lot cheaper than taking them to a lab ;)

Bill58
06-21-2009, 00:41
Bill, to be honest, aside the reportage style of the image, which is for sure the strongest thing one can note (and I can only imagine how much you were in a rush to take it - I wouldn't have got it for sure in such chaos), I find it a bit too dark, especially on the bottom part. I'd be glad to see even a "calmer" image where you can prove a wider exposure latitude of the roll you used, thanks again.

You're 100% right. It was a "hot" scene and I should've opened it up an f-stop or two. I'm gonna correct in photoshop.

A brighter one (CV21/4 on a Canon Model P):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wrs111445/3640599468/sizes/l/

philipp.leser
06-21-2009, 01:31
...
I'd be the first to admit that this isn't a scientific test but in my view Tri-X is as fast as Neopan 1600 -- or faster -- if you push it a bit. Certainly I think that Tri-X is a true 400 film and I cannot understand why anyone would want to under-rate it. ...

In the end the most important thing is which film you personally like and want to use, but let me say a few things:

It is not really meaningful to talk about the speed of a film without bringing the developer into the equation. Contrary to what is often said in forums, the choice of the developer might move the speed point maybe 2/3 or 1 stop, but not more. When I say "speed" I refer to the actual speed the film has in the given developer, i.e. the speed at which a zone 1 exposure has a log density of 0.1. This ensures full shadow detail.

So while the developer might not have a huge effect on the effective speed, it will give you a very specific characteristic curve and especially modify the highlights, e.g. a compensating developer or a two bath developer will develop highlights in a very different manner compared to a "standard" dev.

It's always a good way to only mention the speed of the film in question together with the developer used. I also like to use EI instead of ISO to stress that I'm not talking about the manufacturers measurements according to ISO but to my own measurements and / or experience.

The second point I'd like to make is that metering usually plays a bigger role than the actual speed in casual tests like yours. Now, I don't know how you metered the scenes, but it's obvious that the Neopan shot was of a quite uniformly lit scene, while Tri-X was used for a very contrasty subject. An averaging meter will measure a lot of black and a speck of white in the Tri-X shot and will try to pull all that black around the person to a mid grey. This would result in an overexposed image (after all, the background should be black, not mid grey). By raising the speed by, say, two stops you compensate for that effect, but that doesn't make Tri-X a 1600 film! It just means that it's a ISO 400 film and you metered for the background to be black and the face to be at zone 6 or so!

The way I would recommend handling this is: Measure the actual speed of your film by shooting a few test frames of a grey card at different EV. Find the frame with a log density of 0.1 to find the actual speed. Set your meter to that speed and keep it there! Compensate for metering troubles by using the exposure compensation of your camera or hand-held meter. This eliminates TONS of confusion regarding the speed of films.

By the way, my own testing of Neopan 1600 and Tri-X in Diafine revealed Tri-X to have a real speed of EI 400, Neopan 1600 to have one of EI 800 and Neopan 400 to have one of EI 320. The characteristic curves are available on my web site. (http://www.leser.ruhr.de/foto/filmtesting/)

Regards,
Philipp

italy74
06-21-2009, 03:32
Philipp, Lawrence... sorry for my ignorance here, but I couldn't follow your reasoning..
exactly how did you get that Tri-X shot? Just spot metering on the "highlighted" face of the miner and then underexposing two stops (it seems the more likely thing, but I can't think of which kind of light could enlighten his face so strong to be still (so) readable even underexposed 2 EV) or you just reworked it in the darkroom or both?
I had a similar shot (spot metered to the face of the priest's housekeeper of my parrish taking advantage by the strong afternoon light reflected on her face by the floor and then underexposing -1 EV so that the already darker church mostly vanished around her: so she was in the smoother half-light but well readable) but I honestly wonder what was your light source there... A lamp or torch very close to the miner? It looks there's a small front light and I see the catchlights in his eyes

philipp.leser
06-21-2009, 03:55
Philipp, Lawrence... sorry for my ignorance here, but I couldn't follow your reasoning..
exactly how did you get that Tri-X shot? Just spot metering on the "highlighted" face of the miner and then underexposing two stops (it seems the more likely thing, but I can't think of which kind of light could enlighten his face so strong to be still (so) readable even underexposed 2 EV) or you just reworked it in the darkroom or both?...

I don't know how he made that shot, but what I said only really applies if you use an averaging meter. In a contrasty scene, the meter will tend to overexpose (because of the black background), thus overexposing the scene, which might make you think that the film is more sensitive than it really is.

If you use a spot meter then you're pretty much automatically doing it right! I would spot meter on the face and give one stop more exposure than indicated (to place the face on zone 6), using the real speed of the film, i.e. EI 400 for Tri-X. The strength of the light is no variable in this reasoning, because this will be incorporated in the meter's measurement (i.e. zone 3 is zone 3, no matter what the light is, as long as you meter correctly).

Regards,
Philipp

lawrence
06-22-2009, 05:19
Just spot metering on the "highlighted" face of the miner and then underexposing two stops (it seems the more likely thing, but I can't think of which kind of light could enlighten his face so strong to be still (so) readable even underexposed 2 EV) or you just reworked it in the darkroom or both?....I honestly wonder what was your light source there... A lamp or torch very close to the miner? It looks there's a small front light and I see the catchlights in his eyes

The only light source was the light on my helmet. I'd set the meter on my M6TTL to 1,600 and the reading was off the miner's face (no compensation -- I was assuming 18% reflectance or thereabouts). I then pushed the Tri-X to 1,600 in stock D76.

lawrence
06-22-2009, 05:28
By the way, my own testing of Neopan 1600 and Tri-X in Diafine revealed Tri-X to have a real speed of EI 400, Neopan 1600 to have one of EI 800 and Neopan 400 to have one of EI 320. The characteristic curves are available on my web site. (http://www.leser.ruhr.de/foto/filmtesting/)

That's interesting -- I'm surprised at the results. I'm curious as to why you chose Diafine because I've heard that it's better with the older emulsions (since they are thicker they can absorb and retain more of Bath A). Is it because Diafine develops closer to finality than other developers?

philipp.leser
06-22-2009, 09:16
That's interesting -- I'm surprised at the results. I'm curious as to why you chose Diafine because I've heard that it's better with the older emulsions (since they are thicker they can absorb and retain more of Bath A). Is it because Diafine develops closer to finality than other developers?

Well, for one, I really really like the convenience of Diafine. It's extremely cheap and easy to use. It only produces chemical waste once a year when I have to mix a new batch.

The other reason I like it is that I found it produces negatives I like with a few films. The films that looks very good in Diafine are Fuji Acros and Kodak Tri-X in my opinion. Those two are my main films. For low-light situations I sometimes use Neopan 1600 (I used to use Delta 3200, but that's a t-grain film and needs DD-X or something similar), which also works well in Diafine.

Basically, Diafine works alright with all non-t-grain emulsions and gives box speed with most of those. Some combinations are less great than others (Tri-X looks better than Neo 400, e.g.).

One problem is that it's impossible to control the contrast with Diafine, but I'm just accepting that as a fact; it's still a very easy to use and economic developer even if it means that some films (Acros) usually end up at grade 1 for normal negatives. I suspect this is the reason why some people will for example rate Tri-X at EI 1250 in Diafine. Losing a few stops in the shadows brings the overall contrast down.

It doesn't give the finest grain (except with Fuji Acros 100. That film is absolutely gorgeous in Diafine!), but I like the somewhat old-fashioned tonality it gives with most films.

It's also nice that it's basically impossible to get blown-out highlights with Diafine (when solution A is used up, it's used up).

Regards,
Philipp

Harry Lime
06-22-2009, 10:33
Tri-X has the greatest range of the bunch and IMO the best looking tonality and grain.
You can push it to 1250 or 1600 without much trouble
There is a good reason why they call Tri-X the King of Black and White Films.

I've shot the new TMAX400-2 and was very impressed by how fine grained it was.
But it seemed to have less range than Tri-X, especially in the highlights. Still, a very nice film.

PS: I agree that Diafine is something special. Tri-X pushed to 800 or 1250 is pretty darn impressive in Diafine.

david.elliott
06-22-2009, 10:40
I have been absolutely ecstatic about the results I've been getting with tri-x in diafine. A winning combo in my opinion.

Harry Lime
06-22-2009, 10:46
Here are examples of all three films, followed by my own opinion of them

I agree with your findings.

Delta3200 is the fastest of the bunch. It is a low contrast film, which really works to your advantage when shooting in the dark. Grain is pretty good and not unattractive. Ilford claims it's true speed is 1000asa. Ilford DD-X is supposed to be the perfect developer for this film and that is what I used in the past, but I have been getting really good results with it at 1600 in Diafine. Don't freak out when you see your first negs. D3200 negs tend to look thin, as if you had made a mistake processing. But once you put them in the enlarger or scanner, all will be well...

P3200 is the second fastest, clocking in around 800asa. It doesn't have as much range as Delta3200. The whites clip and darks crush a lot faster. Also that grain.... it's beautiful, but huge. Use the Tmax developer. It gives a noticeable push to the shadows.

Neopan1600 is the slowest and clocks in at about 640asa. In my experience the shadows block up very quickly even at 1250 or 1600. But the grain is very fine. In the past I've shot it at 800 on flat overcast days. That works well and then it's a nice film.

Tri-X in Diafine at 1250 is really beautiful. Smooth, with nice highlights. The shadows aren't as good as Delta3200, but then again Tri-X is only 400 asa. But regardless, this is a real winning combination.

RF'er
06-22-2009, 11:44
Neither one. Fuji Neopan 400, blows them both away. And if I couldn't use the Neopan 400, I'd go with Ilfords Delta 400.

Russ

A BIG +1 on the Fuji :D

sergiojaenlara
07-18-2009, 01:07
I donīt like tmax at all, I think (not only me) that was a strategic kodak product to replace the films before it.
Use triX, no better and nicer film than it, t-grain is so horrible, trix is far better.
If you will use tmax anyway, please use it at iso 250, the results will be far better than rated at 400 iso.
The only paper that can manage tmax range is a plastic one, ilford multigrade iv rc, trix is easy to print with several papers.

IMHO get far away from diafine.

KenD
07-18-2009, 03:42
Shoot a roll of each under conditions as close as possible to what you think you will encounter - pick the one *you* like best. Technical considerations aside, go for whichever look pleases you.

Erik van Straten
07-21-2009, 14:43
Tmax400, Tmax400, Tmax400, Tmax400, Tmax400, Tmax400.

Erik.

crawdiddy
08-15-2009, 13:12
I assume you've already made your trip. FWIW, HP5+ gets my vote.

Matus
10-16-2009, 14:01
Delta 400 with Pyrocat HD - a nice combination. (But Tmax works in Pyrocat just as well)

kubilai
10-16-2009, 14:20
You can use TMax 400 rated 200 for simplicity and somptuous result. And indexing 800 when the situation is getting difficult, the film stay fine. Adapt developping ; you can find advice on the web but do not forget Kodak documentation.

FS Vontz
10-16-2009, 14:28
I voted for HP5 even though it's the only one I've ever used

Chriscrawfordphoto
11-18-2009, 16:53
I donīt like tmax at all, I think (not only me) that was a strategic kodak product to replace the films before it.
Use triX, no better and nicer film than it, t-grain is so horrible, trix is far better.
If you will use tmax anyway, please use it at iso 250, the results will be far better than rated at 400 iso.
The only paper that can manage tmax range is a plastic one, ilford multigrade iv rc, trix is easy to print with several papers.

IMHO get far away from diafine.

I used to print Tmax 100 and Tmax 400 all the time on Ilford Multigrade IV Fiber paper with gorgeous results. These films are brilliant in the hands of a careful worker. If your developing technique is sloppy you'll get bad results with Tmax. It requires precise temperatures, agitation and times.

fotomeow
12-26-2009, 10:24
I voted for HP5: I mean, its kind of a toss-up b/w HP5 and Tri-X. I was raised on HP5 in fotog school b/c it was available and cheap. Ive tried Tri-X 400, and it is great as well, but perhaps a little overrated IMO in the film community. HP5 and Tri-X 400 are more forgiving, as has been mentioned, and you can shoot at lower or higher ISO for versatility!
However, you dont have to travel with just one type of film! When I travel and shoot B&W, I take more rolls of the film that is the most versatile (HP5 400 or Tri-X 400) and also a variety of B&W films:
1. one roll of Pan F50 for very sunny days (incredibly tight grain-->approaches medium format good);
2. some Tmax 400 and/or Delta 400: these are higher contrast films that are better for grey days with low contrast scenes, the high contrast films will allow better tonal range and structure without degrading the picture quality after pushing and pulling during processing
3. one Fuji 1600 roll: higher speed for low light without flash: also a versatile film with very good contrast (my current all-around favorite) that can be brought down to 400 ISO or pushed to 3200.
4. one roll of 3200: Kodak or ilford: can be shot with good effects from 800-6400 iso for versatility; think night shots with fast lens and no flash!
5. a couple rolls of 100 ISO: Tmax, or Delta for sunny days

Versatility is the key here!!! When you diversify flim, you can shoot anything in any condition with good effects, as long as you undersand the film!
Good luck!

semilog
02-21-2010, 15:50
I donīt like tmax at all, I think (not only me) that was a strategic kodak product to replace the films before it.
Use triX, no better and nicer film than it, t-grain is so horrible, trix is far better.
If you will use tmax anyway, please use it at iso 250, the results will be far better than rated at 400 iso.
The only paper that can manage tmax range is a plastic one, ilford multigrade iv rc, trix is easy to print with several papers.

IMHO get far away from diafine.

Two decades ago, that might have been a reasonable suspicion. It might even have been true.

But both films have endured.

Tri-X is still on the market, and TMY has been continuously improved, with the latest generation (2TMY, introduced 2008) being an unequivocally superb emulsion.

With my metering habits, it's a true ISO 400 film. Most others who have used 2TMY with D76, XTOL, or TMAX developer have said the same. YMMV, of course.

Have you actually used 2TMY?

Chriscrawfordphoto
02-21-2010, 16:06
I donīt like tmax at all, I think (not only me) that was a strategic kodak product to replace the films before it.
Use triX, no better and nicer film than it, t-grain is so horrible, trix is far better.
If you will use tmax anyway, please use it at iso 250, the results will be far better than rated at 400 iso.
The only paper that can manage tmax range is a plastic one, ilford multigrade iv rc, trix is easy to print with several papers.

IMHO get far away from diafine.

When I did darkroom printing, I used Tmax 400 (the old Tmax 400 not the current one) on ilford MG-IV-FB very successfully. People who claim that Tmax is worthless are usually not careful workers, able to give it the very precise exposure and developing it requires for good results. I have used Tmax 100, 400, and 3200 for 15 years with no regrets.

Al Patterson
02-21-2010, 19:37
I prefer Ilford XP2

Rob-F
02-21-2010, 19:48
I see this has developed into a debate mainly between Tri-X and TMY-400. I can agree that Tri-X is an excellent choice for a trip, where there may be no opportunity to correct mistakes. For our trip to France last year, I took more Tri-X than anything else.

So what else did I take? I shot some architectural stuff with Delta 400 Pro. I like the sharp, detailed look of it, as well as the way it renders tones. And I took some 100 speed film as well. The trouble with bringing only 400 film, especially with a Hassie or Rollei, is that your top shutter speed is only 1/500. So think of your basic exposure on a sunny day: 1/500 between 11 and 16. That leaves no room at all for opening up to soften a background. And that's why 35mmdelux asked if you will be using an ND filter.

This is why I will throw some Tri-X, some Delta 400 Pro, some Delta 100 Pro, and some Plus-X or FP-4 into the bag. I probably won't use it all, but I am able to select the film that seems best for the subject and the lighting conditions once I see what they are. And with a Hassie and a Rollei, with 12 shots per roll, you won't be stuck with the wrong film in the camera for very long.