Just like with the Ilford Films, I decided to subjectively compare Kodak TMAX 400 and TRI-X 400 at box speed 400 ISO both. The difference this time is that TRI-X was processed on D76 1:1 and TMAX was processed in TMAX Dev at Kodak recommended specs.
Of course controlling all the other possible variables as better as possible, I shot the same scene or subject with little time apart and developed both rolls (35mm) within the standard parameters. When Printing (see attachment), I also printed on to the same type of paper and developed exactly alike (Dektol 2:1) to avoid introducing more variables. To be honest , the Dektol on the tray was starting to lose its clear look because I had been sitting out for many hours. but were printed minutes apart so both are affected by the same variable.
The following are my subjective findings and I would like to ask out there if they are in sync with the scientific difference between these films.
- I found TMAX 400 to be more contrasty than TRI-X 400
- I found TRIX to have coarser grain than TMAX . TMAX grain is finer rendering what it seems sharper prints.
- I found TMAX to be less tolerable to high contrast scene than TRIX (this of course taking in consideration that both were develop at standard specs. in its respective developers.
- I have the impression that TMAX produces sharper print, probably due to finer grain.
- TMAX scans better than TRIX . No ICE, clean or sharpen functions were applied. They were scanned off of the paper final print.
In the nature print, look at the lower left bottom corner of both prints. Look how the TMAX is more contrasty rendering that vegetation more attractive.
thank you for your comments.