Tri-X 400 & TMAX 400 B&W Silver Gelatin Prints!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 окт 2024
- We're currently working on a side-by-side comparison blog of Kodak Tri-X 400 & TMAX 400 and here's a print preview!
This we're printed on genuine ILFORD Black and White Silver Gelatin Photographic Paper which is a very unique service we offer at TheDarkroom.com!
Website: thedarkroom.com
Instagram: / thedarkroomlab
![Gunna - HIM ALL ALONG [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HiCxoDeo0hc/mqdefault.jpg)
This 80 yo BW photographer thought I would prefer the newer TMax with the controlled grain size and shape. Surprised my self by liking the Tri-X more times than the TMax. Nice job/
Very nice comparison, you succeeded to shot each couple of photo with nearly the identical composition.
It seems like TRI-x has more contrast and it's a bit more detailed than the t-max
What camera did you snap these on? They look great.
tri-x by far. love the contrast and perceivable sharpness
The biggest difference to my eye were in the portrait shots. The Tri-X seemed to render better. The portraits with the TMax seemed muddy to me. Not enough separation of tones. The non-portrait shots looked pretty similar though.
Absolutely beautiful shots man!
man, great video, been searching around for a vid exactly like this.
Seems like TX is just a bit darker blacks & whiter whites, for more contrast. I choose the TX for sure.
Thank you for a useful, helpful and teaching video. RS. Canada
Más contraste y a su vez más detalle en sombras en el TriX, pero la diferencia es mínima. Congratulations for the shots!!
Great video
I think you should have printed bigger: 16x20 or 20x24, to bring out whatever flaws there are. What I like about TMAX 400 is that you can push sheets to 3200 with various developers. There is no Tri_X 400 sheet film, only Tri-X 320 and Kodak doesn't list push process figures beyond ASA 1250, and that only with XTOL.
They are both nice! I tend to like Tri-X though and it's cheaper.
I used the Kodak TMAX400 120 film for many years, I shot it at 200 ASA/ISO and developed it in a thin solution for a long time with very few and very gently agitations, in that way the film had more grey tones and had still very good contrast, in modern words, larger dynamic range. I guess you can do the same with a Ilford Delta 400 film. Of paper I used Ilford Multigrade. Made great images from my 6x6 Hasselblad ! The TMAX 400 are MUCH better in any way than the Tri-X.
To all the people complaining that the video is too fast. You know you can play the video in slow-mo if you hit the three dots in the top right corner and adjust the settings. People post quick videos because a lot of people won’t watch a long video if they just want quick feedback. Just thought I’d put that out there 😉
Will we see comparison on the blog? :)
These are not darkroom enlargments. They are minilab prints of scans on silver paper. The only difference I can see is some Tmy shots were underexposed. Try darkroom printing!
Au delà des sujets photographiés, si savez choisir les sujets, une fois le développement fait, jusqu'au lavage, vous ne mettez pas à sécher le film après un passage au congélateur une nuit.Le lendemain, mous mettez à sécher votre film. une fois bien sec, à l'agrandisseur vous aurez une sorte de trame qui s'est crée au congélateur, et si le sujet s'y prête,vous aurez une belle photo. Pour une réticulation, cela se fait dans l'eau bouillante, ici quelques minutes avant le séchage. Cela ne se fait qu'avec le noir et blanc. Essayez la pellicule 25 i s o, développement normal, pareil pour le tirage, vous aurez l'impression d'une photo du début 20 e m e siècle, surtout avec un virage sépia,
alors qu'elle aura été faite récemment. Faites très attention au contraste.
Tri-X works for me
What is the point of racing through the photos so we can't even see them let alone compare them?
You're literally one spacebar-click away from taking all the time in the world. How can you be so lazy?
Tmax is less affected by developer than Tri-X. Tri-X can have lesser contrast than Tmax. On the other hand Hp5 is richer than both in the same soup. :) I'm speaking of my own experimentation with HC-110.
Many days and no response from any emails to answer some simple questions. I've read from reviews that the company has been going down in service and quality recently. I knew it was a red flag when they said they DO NO list a phone number to talk to clients. The only time I've seen a business do that is when they are going rotten and have to many complaints. Can you imagine if I actually mailed my film in and had a problem? They won't even respond to people wanting to give them business. So glad I did not send them my many films, they lost some hefty business from me.
Tri-x wins in my book.
TX400 forever
tmax. more grey tones
Tri-x
Tri-X
We cannot see anything in the photo comparison! This is too fast! Useless video to me
Not useless video, but your're right it's too fast. I paused it to see better
"T-Max has lower contrast but more punchy tones." Is it possible to find a more silly contradiction in terms? Assuming every other part of the printing process is neutral, then film contrast is just a matter of extent of development, at least for this type of comparison. My conclusion is that this is a worthless presentation. What is instructive is that the prints are made on Ilford paper. There was a time when Kodak offered a diversity of B&W paper so great that it far exceeded the combined offerings of all other producers. Then Kodak decided that the future of film photography would be color negative processes for which they held all of the patents, so they killed all of their B&W paper and the majority of their B&W films. They also closed their B&W research lab, junked most of the B&W coating equipment, knocked down the building and put up a parking lot.
Slow down man you are going waaay to fast
too fast