Hi everyone,

I've been debating whether or not to stock on Tri-X or T-Max stock for my street photography. I know that Tri-X is an older emulsion formula than T-Max but it's still wonderful. I'm not too well-versed in the technical aspects but I would love to have both the objective/subjective opinions about Tri-X vs. T-Max Kodak :) Thanks...

I plan to stick the film into my Nikon F and Leicaflex cameras and Leica Mini to see how those fare :)

sincerely, Alfie

-- Albert Wang (albert.wang@ibx.com), October 29, 2001

Answers

Upside: TMax is finer grained, higher acutance. It pushes better.

Downside: TMax is much more finicky on exposure tolerance and processing procedure to get the most out of it.

Many people prefer Tri-X because of its ease of use, reliability and the aesthetic qualities of its grain structure.

For me, personally, I don't use either much ... I prefer the Ilford Delta Pro 400, XP2 Super or Kodak T400CN emulsions for a 400 speed film, I find they have better tonal separation in the mid range and more exposure tolerance.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), October 29, 2001.

Hi, Alfie:

I´d like to second Godfrey's opinion regarding Ilford's XP2 and Kodak T400CN: given that your intended usage is street photography I think that they considerably increase the odds of getting usable negatives in non ideal conditions that often take place in the streets, mainly because you can expose at different ISO speeds in the same roll.

I have tried them both and IMO they are very much the same. I'm sure that more knowlegeable friends here could help to clarify this last issue but for general street usage I'd hold to my conclusion.

In summary: I think it could be worth to give them a try.

Best of luck !

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), October 29, 2001.

Of the two, Tri-X or T-Max, I personally find Tri-X a bit more asthetically pleasing to the eye. Both are excellent emolusions with the Tri-X being of an older technology. I find that Tri-X gives me better tonality with a medium yellow filter for some reason. Maybe it is just my was of seeing things. Bottom line: both excellent but I prefer Tri-X and use it often.

-- John Alfred Tropiano (jat18@psu.edu), October 29, 2001.

Some of my favorite photos are T-max, but Tri-X is by far my favorite film. Nothing else looks like good old TX. Looks great in rodinal at EI 200, fabulous in D76 at 400, and unbelievable at 1600 in diafine. I don't think you can beat it for versatility and tone.

-- John Fleetwood (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), October 29, 2001.

You did invite subjective comments. I like Tri-X. I have been using it for 44 years [first thing that I ever developed as a child]. We have a history together and understand each other. I don't really like T-Max. Why; I haven't analyzed why, I just don't. But T-Max isn't all that bad when compared to the Chrom. films. Now, I haven't tried them since XP-1. That was the worst film I have ever used. It cured me of trying them again.

Is that subjective enough. :)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), October 29, 2001.

Art, you really should try XP-2 Super. Although I personally prefer the "look" of a bit of grain structure in my films and use Ilford HP-5+ for personal work, I use the XP-2 a great deal in my work for clients. It will produce a 16x20 that is very hard to distinguish from medium format.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), October 29, 2001.

I used a ton of Tri-X way back when, when I could still get b&w processing at reasonable cost. I happen to deplore and detest doing my own darkroom work. I have never used T-Max but my son did, in his HS photo class a few years ago, and the results were finer-grained but as has been said, the development was trickier. The only b&w work I've done in recent years was with the chromogenics. The new Portra chromogenic is nicer than the 400CN becaus the Portra is made to run on the same machine channel as the Portra color films and print neutrally on color paper without the color casts and unpredictability. IMO, if you do your own scanning or use a pro lab that's hybrid (digital scan, chemical print), it's so easy to convert a color neg image to b&w that I prefer shooting color neg and then seeing which way the image looks better.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), October 29, 2001.

good question Albert; I´ve been a TX user for more than twenty years; and I can´t compare it to others since little use of other films; when I used some TMAX in 1987, the neg looked so washed out that I got scared about this film, although it prints so well, now I´m using XP2 as emergency film and have found it reliable; still time´s early to have more references about it. I like the strength of TX, against humidity, heat, pushing, developing tolerances and exposure latitud, grain structure is something I love of it too; after so much experiences is hard for me to try another film; but thanks to this forum and you fellows shared experiences and a local store that´s selling Ilford film, I´m gonna give it a try in the next future.I´ll post some questions about the usage of it soon, I know I´ll have a lot of experience from all of you that will help so much.Thanks and good luck choosing Albert

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), October 29, 2001.

Here's an answer you probably don't want: each of these B&W films can give excellent results, as can the Agfa, Ilford and Fuji EI 400 alternatives, as long as you take the time to optimize your technique with them. As regards grain and sharpness, IMHO, all EI 400 B&W films out there are very good today; the EI 100 films are almost all excellent. The modern (T-grain, Delta, etc.) emulsions are thinner, sharper and finer-grained, but tend to block up highlights more easily, at least for printing through an enlarger. The classic (e.g., TriX) emulsions have the advantage of greater latitude and an apparently smoother tonal range. Some of the preference of many 35mm photographers still for TriX is because we grew up with that tonal rendition as defining black and white photography---it has a certain look that we expect from journalistic B&W. It isn't better than the others, just familiar. I personally use TriX for my EI 400 and Delta 100 for my EI 100 film, because I like the look of conventional prints from each. However, as I've started the migration from chemical to digital printing, I've been using Agfapan 400, because it seems to scan very nicely. I guess the answer to all questions like this is that you have to find what works for you, because we all have different approaches and expectations. Good luck!

-- Tim Nelson (timothy.nelson@yale.edu), October 29, 2001.

I've been using T-Max 400 in Xtol 1:1 for the past 18 months and love it. I was forced to use XP2 at a workshop this summer and hated it. I print T-Max on either Polycontrast III on PolyMax II, Seleium Toned, and really like the results. What do I like? Very smooth and extended tones, yet a lot of contrast "snap." Minimal grain, yet at times, in very light shadows, grain almost looks like an ink wash. I use a dichronic with no filters, so the RC paper grade (as advertised by Kodak) is 2.5. But one person's rose is anothers weed.

-- Leicaddict (leicaddict@hotmail.com), October 29, 2001.

Hmm. TMax 400 in XTOL 1:1 has been extremely unpredictable for me. When I shoot it I get my best results in HC-110 1:31 from the concentrate (Dilution B).

Regards the C41 films, XP1 was ages and ages ago. Current generation XP2 Super, T400CN, B&W Select, Portra B&W are all FAR superior. The Kodak films are all more contrasty than the Ilford film, with B&W Select and Portra B&W being the more recent and easier to print on color materials. XP2 Super is nicer when overexposed and prints best on B&W papers as it does not have the orange crossover mask.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), October 29, 2001.

All of the above posts are really helpful. To me the final decision should be based on your choice of output. If you do your own wet printing then TMX is quite beautiful when you can control the process and it is the first choice for fine grain relatively fast film. Ditto with TX when you need a faster film. I don't need to repeat the virtues of TX. These days if you prefer a lab to do your processing and printing or if you prefer digital output then look no further than XP2 or CN400. I have use both extensively beginning with XP1 ten years ago and don't think I like it for wet printing. However for scanning and ease of developement they are the best and only choice.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), October 29, 2001.

The base of T-MAX is much clearer than Tri-X; it reminds me of Verichrome. This means a lower film base + fog level for T-Max. In theory the shadows will have more detail. In theory.

My advice: Shoot 2 rolls each, then pick one based on the results YOU like. Go buy 50 rolls of your choosen emulsion, take pictures, and forget about the theory.

My film is Ilford HP5+. Either Tri-x or T-Max will do in a pinch. I shoot them all at an EI of 200 and use HC110-B.

Cheers!

-- Tony Oresteen (aoresteen@lsqgroup.com), October 29, 2001.

For street photography, I'd say traditional 400 ASA films are the most versatile. Personally, I don't care for the T-Max look, although the Delta films appear to be far superior. If your concern is sharpness and grain, give HP5+ a try. Although the chromogenic films are fine grain and offer better gradation than T-Max films, they will fade and discolor. If you can afford to lose a stop, try the Bergger BRF 200. A bit grainy, but very sharp with beautiful gradation.

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), October 29, 2001.

Apart from grain structure, these two films are different from each other in their spectrum response (diferent grey scale of the colors as we see them) as well as in the reciprocity effect.

The latter may not be important for daytime street photography, but for people shots the spectral response is something to look into.

The filter factors are also different.

-- Hans Berkhout (berkhout@cadvision.com), October 29, 2001.

I'm pretty much in agreement with the majority. I feel that TMY can span a wide range of luminance, such as may occur in the highlights and shadows of an architectural shot. And it is finer grained than TX. Otherwise, TX gives a richer looking image. To me, T-Max wants to be flat. TX on the other hand can give a snappy print even on a shadowless, overcast day. And it is more forgiving to shoot and develop. I think this is partly owing to its rounded-off highlight curve, which helps to not completely block up highlights.

And I'll also ditto the sentiment that Delta Pro just "looks" better than T-Max, but I'm not sure I can explain why. I think maybe it has better local contrast, or in other words, doesn't have the flatness I seem to see in TMax.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), October 29, 2001.