Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,283   Posts: 1,534,922   Online: 868
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    David Goldstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Little Rock
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    58
    Images
    54

    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
    --
    David

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    720
    At least since 1962 which was the 1st time I used it. Wikipedia dates it before that but I can go back no further.

  3. #3
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,862
    Quote Originally Posted by BMbikerider View Post
    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."

  4. #4
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    It appears to have had at least 3 reformulations over the years. The current Tri X is certainly quite different than the original.

    PE

  5. #5
    Rafal Lukawiecki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Co. Wicklow, Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    737
    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.
    Rafal Lukawiecki
    See rafal.net | Read rafal.net/articles

  6. #6
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,283
    Images
    5
    And, there's this: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4017/f4017.pdf

    It was in 2007 when Kodak changed coating facilities.

  7. #7
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,862
    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.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    54
    I believe the orginal Tri-x (200 ASA) was introduced in 1954. Same year as the M3.

  9. #9
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,862
    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.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    680
    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.
    RJ

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin