Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,012   Posts: 1,524,700   Online: 842
      
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 123

Thread: Tri-X vs. T-Max

  1. #21
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,454
    Images
    74
    Both are top quality films that can make nice images. Tmax requires more care in developing; smaller changes produce stronger results. Needs more fixing and washing as well compared to traditional films. The upside is that it is so versatile. Someone familiar with it could emulate any look except for the grain. I've used tmy/tmy2 since it came out and have this familiarity with it. John Sexton would be a more reputable person of skill who can make the film do what he wants. It'd be a foolish business decision, but I think Kodak could discontinue tri-x and we'd be able to adapt to tmy2 because of it's versatility. But people who like grain and sloppy darkroom workers would howl.

  2. #22
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,329
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    This is more of a personal thing. I've used both films alot, and my preference is for Tri-x, simply because it's very forgiving and more importantly, it's grainier. I shoot MF and prefer the grain. If I shot 35mm my preference may differ. Both are great films, but to me Tri-x has a bit more character.

  3. #23
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,600
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    ChuckP makes a good point we should be careful to differentiate between TXP 320 and TX.
    Yep, different.

    All three films in thought here are great though. Not a slacker in the bunch.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  4. #24
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    352
    Wow a lot of responce. I find the claim of Anchell very strong. For him his saying is correct I suppose.
    I have never used Tri-X. I use TMax 400 for my work in 35mm as well as 4x5. I test all of my films with step wedges and all that to see how a film is with my developer. I personally prefer the straightness of the curves which I see with "modern" films over that of "classical" films. I suppose to see "microscopic
    variations in contrast" you need a microscope in sorts.
    The general look and feel of a film of course in combination with a certain paper should fit.
    There are a lot of claims and thoughts out there, some true some only in part.
    Hopefully we with have both films and all others for a long time to keep everybody happy and the discussions going.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,043
    TMY has (slightly) finer grain than TX, but I like the look of TX better. Anchell may be on to something, or maybe not. I also liked the look of TMX much more than PX, and TMX is still my favorite 100 speed class film.

  6. #26
    Jerevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,858
    Images
    9
    Any opinion about a certain film says more about the photographer using it, than about the film itself.
    “Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.” - Lao Tzu

  7. #27
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    I don't know a better word to describe this except "BS".

    I'm not saying he's wrong, that would be dignifying. He's so wrong he's not even wrong.
    I can't even call BS, because I don't even understand it.

    I mean I understand it, but... I don't understand it. Rounded pebble shape means better microcontrast- how?
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  8. #28
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,177
    Images
    291
    I think we should just rejoice in the fact that both versions of Tri-X as well as TMax 400 are available to us today. All of them are amazing films, each with some individual strengths. The day either of them become unavailable will be a sad day.

    Having used both TX400 and TMY/TMY-2 a fair bit I have to say I often need to look at the negative itself to tell what film it was unless I remember. In using them I find Tri-X 400 is more forgiving in processing, in that it reacts to processing alterations slower, and TMY-2 is more forgiving in exposure in that it records a longer brightness range, but it reacts much quicker to processing changes, so it might be a little bit more difficult to handle in the darkroom. Tri-X has lower resolution and more grain, for better or worse (depending on what you want). But other than that I find that they are more similar than they are different and it's easy to use both films to make the type of negative that my paper likes, and to me when I get the print just right, the rest becomes academic and no longer even interests me.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #29
    Halka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SVK, EU
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    35
    By the way, how does the production still go on with Kodak's current problems? I hope they are not just emptying the stores...

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    650
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    Now I do not want to start a discussion of beliefs and maybe this has been covered already. I was just reading some stuff from Steve Anchell where he claims Tri-X is better than T-max. That is how I understand it unless I missed something.
    He wrote if I am allowed to quote
    "The reason is that the thin, flat grains of silver literally do not
    have the depth of rounded pebble shape grains which enable them to record microscopic
    variations in contrast. In other words, the flatter the grain the less capable it is of recording
    micro-contrast."...
    Keep in mind that Steve Anchell refered to the 1980's.,
    The current Tri-X and the 1980's Tri-X are not the same film, its just a name on the box.
    Present day T-Max and Tri-X share much more similarities than they did in the 1980's.

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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