Plus-X vs Tri-X

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by skyrick, May 30, 2009.

  1. skyrick

    skyrick Member

    Messages:
    305
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Location:
    Arlington, T
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    So far my BW shooting has been limited to 120; Fuji Acros and Ilford SFX 200. I'm wanting to start playing w/BW in 35mm.

    Which of the 2 Kodaks in the thread title do you prefer/recommend and why? I won't be using the 35 for portraits, mostly outdoor "found" objects or situations.

    Any other 35mm BWs I may want to try?

    Rick
     
  2. Jeff L

    Jeff L Subscriber

    Messages:
    553
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Location:
    Toronto ON
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Acros in 35mm would be good too. I shoot some Tri-X but mostly Ilford HP5, FP4 and Delta 100.
    Generally all of the film out there is good and interesting to try IMO. For found objects at different times of the day I'd opt for Ilford HP5 or Tri-X.
     
  3. Tim Gray

    Tim Gray Member

    Messages:
    1,787
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Location:
    OH
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Tri-X is a better all around film in my mind because it has more speed. It's also cheaper and probably a bit more flexible in terms of exposure. I like them both though. Plus-X is great for a sunny day.

    It seems to me that Plus-X is a bit less blue sensitive; I don't blow out skies as much when I shoot non-filtered on Plus-X as I do with Tri-X. Maybe that's all in my mind though.
     
  4. kodachrome64

    kodachrome64 Member

    Messages:
    303
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry 8300: BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.266 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102)

    They have a similar look to me. I use them both a lot, solely depending on how much light I have. I use PX from 64-125 and TX from 200-3200 if in a pinch.
     
  5. PhotoJim

    PhotoJim Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    Regina, SK,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I like them both but like Plus-X better of the two, light allowing.

    I tend to shoot FP4 Plus and Pan-F Plus the most though.
     
  6. tony lockerbie

    tony lockerbie Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,363
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Location:
    Merimbula NSW Australia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hard to compare them as they are quite different speeds, although both are "traditional" films with really good exposure/processing latitude. If speed is no object, then go for the Plus-X, it will give you finer grain and a bit more sharpness than the Tri-X.
    I have been using the new TMax400, find it to be an excellent film, much sharper than Plus-x or Tri-X, if that's what you are looking for. Of course you can do as I do, and try them all, great fun!
     
  7. sandermarijn

    sandermarijn Member

    Messages:
    769
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Location:
    Leiden, Neth
    Shooter:
    35mm
    You may want to give Fuji's Neopan 400 a try. I feel this is one of the most underrated films around. It's very similar to Tri-x in all respects, but with slightly finer grain (it has a beautiful grain *pattern*) and higher sharpness. One could maybe say that Neopan 400 is the best of the two worlds of T-grain and old style emulsions: it has the fine grain and sharpness of the former, and the tonality of the latter.

    I don't know about the US, but in Europe Neopan 400 is significantly cheaper that both Tri-x and HP5+.

    I like Neopan 400 best at EI 250 in Rodinal 1+50 8 min, both in 35mm and in 120. Try it, you may be pleasently suprised. Or first read Mark Anthony Smith's evaluation of Neopan 400. He hits the nail on the head if you ask me.
     
  8. nickrapak

    nickrapak Member

    Messages:
    751
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Location:
    Horsham, PA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I am inclined to say that Tri-X is what one would expect from a higher-speed Plus-X, and vice versa. Tri-X has coarser grain, but it is a nice grain. Plus-X has a similar grain pattern, but finer. I like both of these films, and use them as higher and lower speed versions of each other.
     
  9. nworth

    nworth Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,191
    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Location:
    Los Alamos,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Tri-X is faster, Plus-X has finer grain. They have a somewhat different look to them, and they behave a bit differently, but these are fine points, I presently prefer Tri-X, although I used to prefer Plus-X (there's no accounting for taste). I just like the look and handling better, for no good reason. Tri-X has quite fine grain - good enough for just about all uses. Plus-X grain is noticeably finer. Sharpness is nearly equal, although measurements say Plus-X is a bit better. Try a couple of rolls of each and see which works best for you.
     
  10. clayne

    clayne Member

    Messages:
    2,837
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    San Francisc
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Depends on the available light really. If it's quite ample, go with PX, if it's flat and heading towards afternoon, go with TX. If you can't make a decision which film to bring with you on a given day, use TX.
     
  11. Harry Lime

    Harry Lime Member

    Messages:
    476
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2005
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    If I could only shoot one film it would be Tri-X. IMO it truly is the best b/w film made and has been for a very long time.
    Tri-X has an almost perfect balance of tonality, grain and speed. It does pretty much anything and depending on how you process it can have several different looks.

    Plus-X is similar to Tri-X, but of course finer grained. It has a similar feel, probably because both emulsions have been around for a few decades (with a few revisions). Grain is very good and the tonality is excellent. Plus-X is very nice for portrait work.
     
  12. jim appleyard

    jim appleyard Member

    Messages:
    2,131
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Plus-X is often called Tri-X's little brother. I suppose that's true enough. Both are fine films and most of the difference is in the speed of the two films, although grain does play a part.

    Freestyle in L.A. sells their Arista Premium brand which is Plus-X and Tri-X in a different wrapper. The cost is very low.

    Get yourself an extra 35 body and shoot both, one film in each. You'll like both of these films.
     
  13. Jeff Kubach

    Jeff Kubach Member

    Messages:
    6,930
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    Location:
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    If the camera going to be handheld then I will go got Tri-X. If you going to use a tripod than use Plus-X. At least that's what I'll do!

    Jeff
     
  14. ChrisPlatt

    ChrisPlatt Member

    Messages:
    116
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Location:
    NYC
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Buy both and use what is appropriate to the ambient lighting conditions.

    Chris
     
  15. Michel Hardy-Vallée

    Michel Hardy-Vallée Membership Council Council

    Messages:
    4,351
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Location:
    Montréal (QC
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    In 120, I find that Plus-X is a good film to use with HC-110, because it tends to have rather brilliant highlights. Tri-X is much more about good midtones, which is what you want for most situations, especially with people. If you look at each film's characteristic curve, you will see that they differ a bit.

    For landscape, Plus-X can be very interesting. But I can never manage to get it to my taste in 35mm--I haven't worked out a proper EI/dev time to avoid blown highlights (lazy, I know). So I stick to Tri-X in 35mm, because it suits my 35mm style more, and I use Plus-X in 120 because it suits my MF style more...