|
|
|
-
Tri-X history question
Just curious about the current formulation of this film. How far back does it go? I know Tri-x has been around for quite a while, but not a lot more.
Update - well, I found this link - its a start, but for a film thats been around so long, it's more of a summary - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_Tri-X
-
At least since 1962 which was the 1st time I used it. Wikipedia dates it before that but I can go back no further.
-
 Originally Posted by BMbikerider
At least since 1962 which was the 1st time I used it. Wikipedia dates it before that but I can go back no further.
The current formulation certainly hasn't been around since 1962, which I believe was what the OP was asking. Today's Tri-X is noticeably different from what I used in the 70s and early 80s.
From the Wiki link the OP posted:
"In 2007, Tri-X was extensively re-engineered, receiving the new designation 400TX in place of TX or TX400, and became finer-grained."
-
It appears to have had at least 3 reformulations over the years. The current Tri X is certainly quite different than the original.
PE
-
From a very limited personal experience of this film, I can clearly see a difference between my Tri-X negs from 2001 and those I took this year. Seems finer grained and a bit more TMax-like, but the grain structure does not have that regular geometric look that I see in TMax. It seems to be more in between, and very pleasant. XTol 1+1, shot EI 320 in 2001 and 200 this year. I apologise for how imprecise and subjective my statement is, I am sure those who calibrated it will provide more formal comparisons.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
And, there's this: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4017/f4017.pdf
It was in 2007 when Kodak changed coating facilities.
-
I like the current one, but I think I liked the previous one better. For one thing, just like T-Max films, I find the current one effectively loses speed in tungsten light much more than the older one. I know this is contrary to the published spectral response and maybe it's something about my meters (though it seems odd this applies to several different ones AND the same meters worked well under tungsten with prior films) but I find meters that consistently give good exposure under daylight with T-Max films and Tri-X to consistently underexpose with current Tri-X, though the same meters did not do so with the older version.
If you like the look of really old Tri-X use TMZ...er, wait, can't do that either. 
-
I believe the orginal Tri-x (200 ASA) was introduced in 1954. Same year as the M3.
-
The change from 200 to 400 was due to new standards in the definition, not to any change in the film. Older film speeds were biased to ensure plenty of light reached the film.
-
The Wiki says it all. I like the current formulation. Tri-X still works best rated at 200 or 250. I would love to say its the classic film. However, the current version has more magenta dye, finer grain and perhaps improved sharpness. Since the late 90s the photo industry gave us the best film ever.
|
|
Adv Reply
