Holy Crap

Patrick · Sep 18, 2005

I think I'm in LOVE..... Just tried my first roll of Kodak Tri-X and I'm soooo happy. Just started developing again here at home (since high school) and had been playing around with Agfa Pan and FreeStyle's house brand, Arista. But neither compare to this stuff.

Sorry, sure you all know this but around here all I get is "oh yea, that's nice, what's the difference?"

terri · Sep 18, 2005

I don't think I've ever been disappointed with good ol' Tri-X. :thumbup: I hear ya clucking, Big Chicken!

dalelum · Sep 18, 2005

you can't really go wrong with those old emulsions. its sad to see that some of these films are no longer be manufactured, but i think tri-x will continue to be around for a very long time. i would also encourage you to try my current favourite, apx-100. lovely qualities and cheap too.

Patrick · Sep 18, 2005

dalelum said:
you can't really go wrong with those old emulsions. its sad to see that some of these films are no longer be manufactured, but i think tri-x will continue to be around for a very long time. i would also encourage you to try my current favourite, apx-100. lovely qualities and cheap too.

I'm experimenting with apx-100 also with mixed results. I Like it. But I wonder if my scanner likes tri-x better. Until I get off my butt and find a bigger house I'm stuck this way. Can't wait till the day when I can have a darkroom in the house!

darin3200 · Sep 18, 2005

I just bought 5 rolls of tri-x after hearing so many good things about it. Anyone know how it compares with t-max?

ksmattfish · Sep 18, 2005

Tri-X may be an old name, but the emulsion currently being sold under that label is 21st century technology.

ksmattfish · Sep 18, 2005

darin3200 said:
I just bought 5 rolls of tri-x after hearing so many good things about it. Anyone know how it compares with t-max?

Tri-X is a conventional grain film, while Tmax is a tabular grain film. Tabular grain films use flat, coffin shaped silver halide crystals, instead of polyhedron shaped crystals. The flat surface of the tabular grain absorbs more light, so less silver halide crystals are needed. Manufacturers also add sensitizers, which can cause the tabular grain films to require longer fixing (the dreaded purple/magenta dye). The effect is that tabular grain films look less grainy than similar ISO conventional grain films.

Patrick · Sep 18, 2005

ksmattfish said:
Tri-X is a conventional grain film, while Tmax is a tabular grain film. Tabular grain films use flat, coffin shaped silver halide crystals, instead of polyhedron shaped crystals. The flat surface of the tabular grain absorbs more light, so less silver halide crystals are needed. Manufacturers also add sensitizers, which can cause the tabular grain films to require longer fixing (the dreaded purple/magenta dye). The effect is that tabular grain films look less grainy than similar ISO conventional grain films.

:hail:
Thanks for the info. Learn something everyday on here.

darin3200 · Sep 18, 2005

ksmattfish said:
Tri-X is a conventional grain film, while Tmax is a tabular grain film. Tabular grain films use flat, coffin shaped silver halide crystals, instead of polyhedron shaped crystals. The flat surface of the tabular grain absorbs more light, so less silver halide crystals are needed. Manufacturers also add sensitizers, which can cause the tabular grain films to require longer fixing (the dreaded purple/magenta dye). The effect is that tabular grain films look less grainy than similar ISO conventional grain films.

Thanks for all the information :thumbup: I can't wait to get my film

KevinR · Sep 19, 2005

After shooting TMAX for awhile and not really being thrilled with it, I went back to TriX. I was kicking myself for every leaving it. Much better control of contrast and great latitude on the exposure. No wonder so many PJ use it.

Patrick · Sep 19, 2005

KevinR said:
After shooting TMAX for awhile and not really being thrilled with it, I went back to TriX. I was kicking myself for every leaving it. Much better control of contrast and great latitude on the exposure. No wonder so many PJ use it.

Me too. Tried TMax right off the bat but felt like it was missing "something". The Something was what I had trouble figuring out. Think I got it. LOL

Funny how sometimes the look just hits you from out of the blue and all I can say is "There it is..."

nealjpage · Sep 19, 2005

My use of both Tri-X and TMax have left me with "flat" looking negs. I don't really know how to explain what I mean there, but they've been missing something. It might be my processing, though.

KevinR · Sep 19, 2005

The developer and how you agitate can make a big difference in how the images look.

Unimaxium · Sep 19, 2005

I've used tri-X a lot (it's what most students at my school use) and have gotten good results with it. I figured it was a pretty good film. Nothing else I had tried from Kodak, Ilford or Agfa seemed to beat it. But then I tried neopan. In my opinion / experience, both are very nice films, but there's something about the tonal scale of Fuji Neopan that is even better than Tri-X. I was shocked once I saw the results of my first roll. It's almost like Tri-X, squared. I would recommend giving it a try. Of course, YMMV.

Mumfandc · Sep 19, 2005

I was just at B&H today...bought ten rolls of Tri-X, and some Acufine developer.

Haven't been much of a user of Tri-X (Fuji Neopan Acros has always been my fave, as well as Kodak Tmax). But I'm looking into taking some more pictures indoors.

I also bought some Forte Polywarmtone paper, and chemicals to venture into Lith printing.