Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,276   Posts: 1,534,775   Online: 826
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,401
    Images
    3

    Kodak Tri-X 320TXP in 220 size rolls.

    I visited the Silverprint site today and saw Kodak 320TXP for sale in 220 size rolls. Has anybody here used this film and what are your opinions of it for general use in medium-format?
    I ordered some, so I had better like it as it`s the only film i could find in 220.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    420
    Images
    3
    I've used the same film, except it was 120 rather than 220. It was expired by five years but still came out nicely. I can't really compare it to anything else as Tri-x is the only thing i've used for 35mm or medium format. :\ To me, the 35mm Tri-x always seemed a little bit too grainy, but you shouldn't have those problems with medium format negatives unless you're printing on huge paper.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,054
    Hi Keith, I've used quite a bit of this lately, outdated from ebay. The film I got showed a bit of speed loss, but very useable. My initail trial in Rodinal, D-76 and Pyrocat HD were a bit lackluster and I got thin negs.

    After reading DF Cardwell's suggestion that Diafine was good for outdated film, I tried it at EI 1000 and it worked very well. I used it to photograph interiors of old barns with very contrasty light.

    The 220 length is very convenient!

    I would suspect that fresh TXP would be good in just about any dev.

  4. #4
    payral's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    France
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    361
    Images
    78
    Be carefull, Tri-X and TXP are different films. Tri-X (Iso 400) exist for 35 mm and 120. TXP (Iso 320) exist for 120, 220 and sheet film.Name can create confusion, film is different.

  5. #5
    Anscojohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,727
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Tapscott. View Post
    I visited the Silverprint site today and saw Kodak 320TXP for sale in 220 size rolls. Has anybody here used this film and what are your opinions of it for general use in medium-format?
    I ordered some, so I had better like it as it`s the only film i could find in 220.
    ********
    I shot quite a bit of it at one time in my Pentax 6x7; all outdated. Used it for outdoor photography, treating it like I treat "regular" Tri-X--EI 200; souped in straight D23. I had trouble loading it on a ss 220 reel. Finally began wasting frames ten and eleven; then cut the roll in half in the dark and loaded the halves on regular 120 ss reels. I did not feel I was wasting much $ wasting the frames, as I was getting the film for about 25 cents a roll.
    Then I read the instructions for the little ANSCO plastic reel and tank I have, which said that two rolls of 620 could be loaded on it. Sez I to meself, sez I, "If it can take two 120 rolls, I bet it can take one 220 roll." Voila!
    I found I had to extend developing time about 10 percent for so much film in the Ansco tank.
    John, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    40
    I took about 10 rolls of TXP 220 with me to Vietnam, mostly for convenience, didn't want to reload so much. Like John, i exposed it at EI 200. I think it's a little less contrasty that regular Tri X, with a little longer developing time in HC110 Dil B. It's the only B&W film available in 220 now, I believe.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,054
    I found a Nikkor (sp?) 220 tank & reel set on ebay. It's really just an oversized 120 and it makes loading 220 just as easy as 120, only a little longer.

  8. #8
    SuzanneR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,730
    Images
    139
    TXP is engineered as a studio film. It's been my experience that it sings in light that doesn't have a lot of contrast. I find when I'm shooting outside in full sun, the regular Tri-x is a better choice, but unfortunately is not available in 220. It'd be nice to have both available in 220, but alas.... *sigh* because they complement each other nicely.

    As said, it's quite different from the regular tri-x, but having those extra frames are very handy. Sometimes you have to bend a film to your will!!

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,401
    Images
    3
    Thanks for all the replies. I am going to make a simplified ringaround test with the first roll with the lightmeter set to the recommended ISO and process to the Kodak time for D-76. I will make some bracketed exposures of + and - 1 E.V step in half f/stop increments to see which frame seems to provide the best density which will help me to choose a personal E.I. for the other rolls.
    Five exposures to choose from E.I. 160 to 640 should hopefully help me to get it fairly close to optimum. I find that most Ilford films work well at their box speeds (except Pan F+) for me while Kodak 100TMX seems to work best at one-third E.V step slower than box speed, or at least it does when I use it in 4x5 Readyloads.
    I`m looking forward to trying 320TXP.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,908
    Images
    54
    Just started using TXP 320 in 22o rolls,working out development times for HC110 1:63 , looks ok so far. Had to do something with that 220 back thats been lying around for so long.

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