I've always been a TMAX user. What is the difference between the two Tri-X films (besides their ISO)? From the curves it looks like the TX (400) might provide a bit more contrast than the TXP (320).

-- r (ricardospanks1@yahoo.com), August 15, 2001

Answers

The pro version has a retouchable surface. I'd expect that a pro film would have slightly lower contrast. Otherwise they both have the same horrible Tri-X grain.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@att.net), August 15, 2001.

Aw come on, Gene, TX grain has a certain kind of charm to it. ;-)

-- Johnny Motown (johnny.motown@att.net), August 22, 2001.

I feel like Tri-X like the guy in the book, "The Millionaire Next Door"; The only Tri-X I shoot is free Tri-X! I'm shooting some now only because a buddy couldn't use the 220 rolls some one gave him. The new Delta 400 is much better. I'm considering adding it to my two staples, TMX and Tech Pan in 120.

The only good use for tri-x is to check out my enlarger. It's easy to check the corner sharpness with the huge grain. I shoot Tri-X when it first was introduced in 1954 (?) and I didn't like it then.

See http://home.att.net/~nikonguy for examples of 35mm work with Tech Pan. BTW, I've decided to stop shooting 35mm B&W and plan to shoot only 6x6 and 6x7 B&W.

-- Gene Crumpler (hassieguy@att.net), August 23, 2001.

Gene, does this mean that you bought a couple of back-ups for your Hastlejamblad?

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), August 23, 2001.