Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,717   Posts: 1,514,828   Online: 883
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
  1. #11
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by alt photophile View Post
    Can anyone explain why there is Tri-X 320 and Tri-X 400? I personally like the grainy look (though not the 3200 look). Do these films differ in their graininess??
    They are different emulsions. The data sheets have a lot of info.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    They differ a bit in grain, but this is a very minor point. 320TXP (Tri-X 320) is a different film and offered only in medium and large format sizes. 400TX (Tri-X 400) is offered only in 35 mm and medium format sizes. They differ primarily in the shape of the contrast curve. Read about it here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4017/f4017.pdf.
    Frank Schifano

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    If you want something that looks a bit like the old Tri-X, try Foma 200 and 400.
    i was going to say this, but thomas beat me to it.

    - john
    if my apug gallery looks empty you might check these places

    website
    blog
    sell-site

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by alt photophile View Post
    Can anyone explain why there is Tri-X 320 and Tri-X 400? I personally like the grainy look (though not the 3200 look). Do these films differ in their graininess??
    TXP was designed to be a studio film using controlled lighting. However, this is not etched in stone and photographers are a daring bunch and often break the rules with good success.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Van Buren, Arkansas
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,412
    Images
    101
    I thought Tri-X 320 had a retouching film base, and Tri-X 400 did not. (In addition to other differences)

  6. #16
    Ektagraphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeastern Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,689
    Images
    23
    If you are trying to get an antique, 50 year old shot look, try any of the ADOX CHS Art film. That's all I use for B&W. Truly a great film.
    Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Independence Oregon USA at the airport
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    108
    If you really want grain, sharpness and tonality, try Agfa APX 400. It is known as Rollie Retro 400 nowadays.
    AND if you want, the grain can be tamed.
    I love the stuff!
    Dan
    ... Hmmm..., f5.13 @ 1/23 should do it.

  8. #18
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    Tri-X 320 is designed for portraiture, IIRC. So far as I know, the 320 is not available in 35 mm. It has a different characteristic curve shape to make up for the difference between average outdoor lighting and studio lighting. If anything, the 320 should be less grainy.
    Gadget Gainer

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,757
    Quote Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE View Post
    I thought Tri-X 320 had a retouching film base, and Tri-X 400 did not. (In addition to other differences)
    i still have some tri x 400 ... ( 5x7 + 4x5 )
    old stuff expired in the mid/late 90s ..
    it has a "tooth" to retouch ...
    tri x 400 earlier than that also had a tooth ..

    many films will have a "retouchable" surface,
    as long as hardener isn't used with the fixer ...
    i loved printing retouched tri x because
    the grain also helped mask the strokes of lead ...
    we used to enlarge split 5x7 negatives up to 16x20 all the time
    and you couldn't see the strokes that were used to 'smooth' the uneven skin tones
    you basically couldn't beat dk50+tri x and leads for portraits. great stuff ...

    i am speaking of sheet films,
    YMMV with tri x roll films ...
    if my apug gallery looks empty you might check these places

    website
    blog
    sell-site

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Central Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    80
    First of all I apologize for the language nasty should not have been included at all. And I am stating an opinion only partly based on Anchel's book and partly based on my experience with T max 400, classic Tri X from 30 years ago to just before the change in grain structure, and current Tri X. The difference Anchel states is in the silver crystals and grain structure with old Tri X having round crystals and high acutance, while T max has flat crystals and lower acutance; New Tri X has oval crystals lowering the acutance. Cheapening refers to the less silver used in production of Tri X and less yet in T Max. What I'm after is the "gutsy" robust, bold look of the classic tri X. HP5 is the closest that I have used.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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