Kodak Tri-X?

[cigrainger]

I've heard this is a legendary b/w film, especially for street photography. Can anybody explain this to me? It doesn't seem to me that a 400 ISO film is really special? But obviously there are many many many more factors that go into film.

 

[terri]

Well, it's a high quality film that has been around forever. The faster speed makes it ideal when both photographer and subject are on the move (ie street photography). Great flexibility. Easy to use, easy to process, available in both 35 and 120, readily available.

If you wanted a lengthy technical treatise on grain structure, now, I can't give you that. But I always have some in the fridge, it seems!

Why not try some?

 

[cigrainger]

I'll definitely be trying some, sounds good in my book. I'm actually buying several different rolls of b/w film, color neg and color slide film. Trying to cut my chops on the film stuff and decide what works best for me in different situations.

Does it compare well to Ilford Delta 400?

 

[terri]

As far as ease of use, absolutely! I've shot much more of the Kodak than the Ilford, so I can't make a very good comparison for you, though. Honestly, I need to shoot more of the Ilford myself and find out.

Maybe someone with more experience using both films can weigh in for you.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

In my opinion Trixie is far superior to Delta - it just has a better 'feel' especially at higher speeds where it produces a nice grain structure.
Could be that I just have more technical knowledge for processing Kodak films. Or I'm just biased.
Just to put it into perspective: we had a discussion once (in the pub, naturaly) about film, quality and 'feel'. One of us claimed Agfa was better, two of us Kodak. No-one liked Ilford. But just to test it we shot a roll of each in the same camera, using the same test subject, all processed in D-76 and printed in the same enlarger.
None of us could tell the difference between the films.
The bottom line is: the best film is the one you find you like - and you like the one you get the best results with.
Just try all films and stick with the one you prefer.

 

[ksmattfish]

Can anybody explain this to me?

Kodak's advertising and marketing department has been very successful, and in modern photography brand worship is very popular. I love the stuff, but it's no better than other quality BW films. Kodak has regularly modified and updated all of their films (at least the ones that weren't discontinued). The Tri-X of 2007 is not at all the same thing as the Tri-X that was introduced in 1954, or even the Tri-X that was sold in 1984. But you don't throw away a successful brand name after investing big bucks.

Ilford Delta 400 is similar to Kodak Tmax 400; they are both tabular grain films. Tri-X would be similar to Ilford HP5. I've used a lot of Tri-X, HP5, and other BW films. To my eye decisions made regarding processing and printing in the darkroom make much more significant differences than decisions I make regarding brand name at the point of purchase.

 

[Alpha]

I would totally agree with you, Matt, with PanF and some of the Fotokemika films being notable exceptions.