Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,559   Posts: 1,573,292   Online: 938
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Central Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    80

    old Tri X equal ?

    What current film is equalivelent to Kodak tri X before Kodak gave it the Tmax treatment ?
    I want the sharp crisp Tri X we used for decades ! The film great masters used.
    Kodak just had to cheapen and dull a ICON of the photographic world!
    and make it like T Max cheap, mushy, nasty, stuff it is.

    Refrence: Darkroom Cook Book By Stephen Anchell 2008

    Jay

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Huh?
    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)

  3. #3
    msage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Washington State USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    273
    Jay
    I have been using Tri-x for 35+ years in 120 to 8x10 formats. It is and remains my favorite film of all time. It has changed, as all films seem to, but not to the degree you claim IMHO.
    There a number of similar film, HP-5 comes to mind, try it or others.
    Maybe you didn't mean to convey, but your post struck me as venomous.
    Michael

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayd View Post
    What current film is equalivelent to Kodak tri X before Kodak gave it the Tmax treatment ?
    I want the sharp crisp Tri X we used for decades ! The film great masters used.
    Kodak just had to cheapen and dull a ICON of the photographic world!
    and make it like T Max cheap, mushy, nasty, stuff it is.

    Refrence: Darkroom Cook Book By Stephen Anchell 2008

    Jay

  4. #4
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,873
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by msage View Post
    Jay
    I have been using Tri-x for 35+ years in 120 to 8x10 formats. It is and remains my favorite film of all time. It has changed, as all films seem to, but not to the degree you claim IMHO.
    There a number of similar film, HP-5 comes to mind, try it or others.
    Maybe you didn't mean to convey, but your post struck me as venomous.
    Michael
    No venom from Jay--he was quoting Anchell. It's hardly surprising that someone would read that in the Darkroom Cookbook and have questions.
    Charles Hohenstein

  5. #5
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,394
    Images
    148
    Tri-X has changed and been improved a great many times since it's introduction in 1940. Each time for the better.

    I have found your reference in the DCB but Steve is just saying it's become another good fine grained film, rather than a gutsy grainy film, most photographers have always wanted optimal quality & minimum grain which is what Ilford, Kodak & Fuji have been working towards. It's called progress.

    If you want the grain then use Tmax 3200 or Delta 3200.

    Ian

  6. #6
    msage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Washington State USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    273
    My apologies to Jay!
    Michael


    Quote Originally Posted by Chazzy View Post
    No venom from Jay--he was quoting Anchell. It's hardly surprising that someone would read that in the Darkroom Cookbook and have questions.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    FWIW, the "reference" in the OP was added after the fact.

    Additionally, it is thoroughly improper use of a reference. "Kodak gave it the Tmax treatment" and "Kodak just had to cheapen and dull a ICON of the photographic world! (sic) and make it like T Max cheap, mushy, nasty, stuff it is." are not statements contained in the Darkroom Cookbook. They are dramatic statements of opinion as fact based on your heavy-handed interpretation something you read in the book. You include references so readers can check your facts and see your sources if you are proposing a theory, not as an after-the-fact excuse to state strong opinions as fact.

    You *obviously* have never used T-Max, as it is far from cheap, mushy, and nasty. It strives to be, and *is*, entirely the opposite. I personally don't like it or Delta (except 3200) for many reasons (mostly because it is just too good; too technical looking and too much straight line on the curve), but it is not either of those things you named.

    It sounds like what you actually *want* is cheap, mushy and nasty: old Tri-X. Take the current tri-x, or any other currently available 400 film, and mess around with it. You can get it as cheap, mushy, and nasty as you would like. Hint: try gross overexposure and long developing times with heavily dilute developer.

    Also, I am assuming you mean Tri-X 400 in 35mm.

    Oh, I forgot to mention one film in particular: If you want a good Tri-X look, try Arista Premium 400.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 03-08-2009 at 06:24 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    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)

  8. #8
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,503
    Images
    299
    I know what Anchell wrote about Tri-X, that it now was almost indistinguishable from TMY-2 (Tmax 400).

    I took that with a grain of salt, for two reasons. Tmax is fabulous film. It is very fine grained and smooth in comparison to many others. But that doesn't make it bad film. Tri-X is grainier, and not as sharp as Tmax. But for me it's the ultimate film. I love it. It has enough grain to give it bite and to make it interesting, yet with a developer like Edwal 12 you can get grain that is very fine (to the point I have trouble focusing it with a grain focuser at 9x9" enlargement from a 6x6 Hasselblad neg). It is very versatile that way. Try it in Rodinal or HC-110 if you want grain. D76 looks really spectacular with this film also.

    If you want something that looks a bit like the old Tri-X, try Foma 200 and 400.

    But please stop the unnecessary language.
    "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. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,064
    Try souping in Rodinal. It's a clasic combo and should give you the gutsy grain I think you're looking for.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Holga
    Posts
    5
    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??

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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