Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Tri-X 400 in 120 format commens and thoughts?  (Read 6069 times)
sperera
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


« on: January 11, 2010, 03:28:26 PM »
ReplyReply

....never used it...can anyone comment on it for 120 format...I bought 10 rolls of it cos it along with loads of other film.....
Logged

Stephen Perera
www.ulookfierce.com
DanielStone
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 559


« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2010, 01:18:20 AM »
ReplyReply

its a nice film. but with some drawbacks IMO.

1. Its more of a "straigt line" film than the original 320-speed tri-x, the 320 tends to taper off at the shoulder(highlights), helping to keep the highlights from blowing out.

TX400 tends to blow out the highlights, rather than retain the details that are generally wanted by most. Obviously, testing is the best way to assess what film speed needs to be used in order to give you enough shadow detail(if you want shadow detail that is), but still retaining highlight info.

Personally, I prefer 320TXP in 120/220 and 4x5, but I've been finding myself shooting more TMAX 400(TMY-2) lately. Its a great film, very "straight line", but with great contrast in the highlights, along with great tonal separation in shadows and highlights. When done right though, as with ANY film/developer combo.

for 35mm though, I've been shooting primarily Tri-X lately, primarily due to it being cheaper than TMAX 400 in 35mm. I don't enlarge very much(generally less than 8x10 90% of the time)

give it a shot though. lots of people love TX400, and I highly doubt its going anywhere anytime soon.

-Dan
Logged
markhout
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2010, 09:08:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sperera
....never used it...can anyone comment on it for 120 format...I bought 10 rolls of it cos it along with loads of other film.....

Prefer TXP as well, but you should try Tri-X (TX) in Pyro developer @ 200 ISO, see images 16, 17 and 18.

Mark
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2010, 09:45:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I used to love TXP 120 but never Tri X in 35mm; for that speed zone I used Ilford's HP3 and then HP4. I developed all of them in D76 1+1 and found it a great standard mix. In fact TXP 120 was the only Kodak film I used in b/w; all the others were Ilford. However, Kodak ruled in colour until Velvia. It was my theory to learn the working minimum of good systems and cut out the chances of variables.

Rob C
Logged

TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2010, 09:05:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I love it for a certain super sharp, high acutance look in XTOL, shot at 200.  It a harsh, harsh look, but fits a certain look. Hard roll off (drop off) of high lights, they block when agressively processed in XTOL.  It has nice tones when shot at 320 - 400 but starts to block shadows at 400. I love Tri-X in 35 in HC110.  I like the curve you get when processing 35mm Tri-X shot at 200 in HC110.  

I like TXP 320 under lights, has a similar look to Tri-X but is a little smoother.  I find it is a little more sensitive to over/under exposure than Tri-X 400.  

TMAX 100 or 400 has better tones, softer toe and shoulders.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad