Portraits on Kodak Tri X 400... Who else uses this?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 окт 2021
- To support the channel and buy my prints visit the SFLaB Website
www.rogerlowe.co.uk
Want more content?
Why not become a member!
/ shootfilmlikeaboss
Become a member of SFLaB and JOIN the RUclips Members area.
/ @shootfilmlikeaboss
About This Video -
Kodak Tri-x is not a film I use often, mainly due to the price. But now and again I treat myself and it never fails.
In this video I mention a few iconic photographers. I am not sure who took the photographs but I am using them in fair use to show the person behind the name. Check those photographers out...
David Bailey 1938 - Present
Henri Cartier-Bresson 1908 - 2004
Robert Frank 1924 - 2019
Garry Winogrand 1928 - 1984
Mary Ellen Mark 1940 - 2015
Sebastião Salgado 1944 - present
Elliott Erwitt 1928 - present
Vivian Maier 1926 - 2009
Cheers Jacob for modelling!
Contact me
THE SFLaB WEBSITE
www.rogerlowe.co.uk
FACEBOOK
/ shootfilmlikeaboss
INSTAGRAM
/ shootfilmlikeaboss
EQUIPMENT USED IN THIS VIDEO
CAMERA - Nikon F5
FILM - Kodak Tri-x 400
DEVELOPER - Kodak D76
STOP & FIX - Ilford
ENLARGER - DURST M605
PAPER - Kentmere VC Select
DEVELOPER - Ilford MG
STOP & FIX - Ilford
PRODUCTION GEAR
CANON 6D, GOPRO 7 BLACK, TASCAM DR10L MIC, SENHEISSER SHOTGUN MIC,
NEEWER LED PANELS, GVM COLOUR PANELS, Valoi 360 Film Holder System for scanes, Zeapon Micro 2 Motor Slider,
Editing - FCP, PHOTOSHOP, LIGHTROOM,
ABOUT MY VIDEOS
If my videos inspire, create ideas and help others in film photography and darkroom work then it's worth making them.
I always welcome comments that are useful towards the video subject that will help others understand the process within.
Keep shooting and thanks for watching.
MUSIC CREDITING
RUclips Studio Music 
Хобби
Great results from that Tri-X! Sadly I can't justify the price of the stuff to really give it a go, I can almost buy 2 rolls of HP5 for the price of a single roll of Tri-X where I live. Makes this film a "special occasions only" sort of thing.
Agreed
Agreed and I prefer it over Tri-X cuz of the tonal range
I love Tri-X 400, just wish it were half the price. The price has been going up.
This is THE FILM I learned photography on back in high school on Long Island, NY in the early 1970s. I've always liked working with this film, even after moving over to digital. I would also add that I've really come to enjoy shooting Ilford's HP5 to serve as a comparison to the legendary Kodak emulsion.
After watching many of your videos, I am very glad to see that your content and pardon the pun, "exposure" continues to grow your channel. Unfortunately, and unlike yourself, I live in an apartment and do not have my own darkroom, but should I buy a house, I WILL GET a darkroom and do my own processing and scanning.
Sadly, the lab I use near me in NJ has a rather warped view of what high resolution scanning is or should be. Thus, I've decided to not use them for that any longer. Please keep these videos coming, even if I do discover them well after you posted them.
Cheers!
Thanks Paul
I used a lot of Tri-X and determined that ei200 was the way to go for me. I also had thin negs and that cured it. I think Kodak simply had some of the info wrong, espescially for HC-110. These days i am 100% HP5+.Thanks for the video.
Tri-X in D76 is a great combination, I usually meter for ISO320 and get good shadow detail. One often overlooked fact about Kodak’s published development times is that they assume agitation every half minute and not once every minute. The times published by Kodak combined with agitation every minute will give you low contrast and/or underdeveloped negatives. With any new film I usually shot the first roll at box speed and check the negatives, if I don’t get sufficient shadow detail I lower the ISO (or more correctly the exposure index) for the next roll until I get what I want.
Thanks David.
Great vid bud :-) Cracking portrait too. Really like the one with the Retina....... Riteeeena...... errrr....... The shiny camera one!!
I have never used it, but after this post I’ll have to give it a try
This is awesome!!!
Some really awesome shots got captured there, love the ones with George .
Thanks Anna!
Can’t tell you how excited I was to see a new video up Roger as for Tri-X I haven’t shot it for over 30 years but I do have 4 rolls in the fridge excited to see what it’s produces today but was always seen in my day a a posh version of HP5
Hope you get good results Jonny.
Just stumbled into this video. Good review and use of TriX400. Been working on a series of portraits and they’re turning out exactly as I hoped. Enjoy using this film. Thanks for the vid.
Excellent. Really enjoyed that.
Glad you enjoyed it
KOdak TRI-X is my favorite B-w film along with Ilford FP4+ and Ilford PAN-400. I used to make portraits on it around 2009-2012, but mostly use it for "janre/street" photography or landscapes) P.S. I never liked lford HP5+ and never understood hipe around it)
Roger, I've been enjoying your videos of landscapes and seashores for quite a while, but wow - you're a damn fine portrait photographer. I love how you use light and shadow, and would to see you do some more portrait videos. Maybe one with Fomopan 100 or one of the other budget B&W films for those of us not able to cough up the $$$ for Tri-X400. Great work!!
Cheers Craig.
your videos are always interesting. ☺👍
Glad you like them Achim :)
I've shot Tri-X for nearly 60 years in all formats from 35mm to 8x10; most of it developed in HC-110. I love the tonality and feeling of "presence" this film can reveal, but stopped shooting the 8x10 size many years ago due to the high cost. I have a fairly large stash of 120 and 4x5 in the freezer that will carry me for several more years. Love the portraits!
Nice Alan!
same as John Fink says - I've been shooting Tri-x since '69 when I got my first Nikon SLR
I still shoot it in several 35mm and 120 cameras - great film - great look. shot a lot of portraits and candids with it back then
In my opinion it is the best 400 iso developed in D76. I love it. It is expensive but I'm happy to spend for this film. I would like to try to push it and develop it in Microphen.
Thanks Mr Collins¡¡
Awesome portraits mate I love tri x not used it as much as I should tho I’m get generally hp5 or Tmax 400. Top video as always Roger cheers
Cheers Paul. Hop your channel is growing
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss thanks mate growing at the same rate as my legs 👀
I use Kodak TX400 and HP5 regularly. I learned that I have to change to ISO 200, to get better and more contrasty pictures.
True. It was originales rated at 200iso before the 70s
You dev at 400?
I have been using Tri-X400 since the mid 70's :-)
For me, it has nice grain structure (although a bit different in recent history.
It's a bit better than HP5+ for me although I do shoot both for different reasons.
Keep up the great work Roger!!
Cheers John
Probably my favorite black and white film, was very lucky to get a cache before the price went up XD
Maybe shoot at ISO 200?
I used it in th 90's also with D76, when I started in photography. I remember it was an easy film for beginners, the results were very consistent, but these days the price is ridiculous, so I stick to either Agfa APX or Ilford HP5
I have not shot Tri X since the late 80s. I used to love it in the 120 and the 4X5 format, the 320 Pro. It was magical in HC110 dilution B. The price of it at the moment, is rather off putting. If I remember correctly, I used to rate it @ 250.
What nice images. 😊 I myself, I must say that I really struggle to see the difference between Tri-X and HP5 at box speed. They both look great both as scans and darkroom prints. I prefer HP5 for pulling and Tri-X for pushing. Might just be me. Thanks for another nice video.
Cheers Espen!
I'm no expert, but I've read many people loudly insist that Tri-X's "true" speed is closer to 200 than 400. This would mean that the box speed is in actual fact a one-stop push, and explains why when normally developed, it gives that unique contrast and those inky blacks we all know and love. I have had times when my negs came out a little on the thin side, and I found that the solution was to agitate more than usual. I think I've mentioned this before, but Azriel Knight's video on agitation during development demonstrates the under-agitation is in fact the thing that should be avoided.
I actually started off using Tri-X. I prefer it to HP5, and it definitely pushes way better than HP5.
I didn't push this time but it certainly held up considering my neg issue
I use it for nighttime photography mainly, and it gives a very cinematic feel to it. Also amazing photographs!
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss I noticed you use kentmere select paper as I too did before switching to multigrade V pearl. Do you prefer the kenmore for its cooler more neutral look? The new multigrade V has better contrast but I'm not a great fan of its warmer tone...
I use Trix 320 and rate it at 1000iso develop in Diafine, in the right lighting conditions its a great pairing, some of my best images over the years were taken on 400 tri-X, its cost is very off putting for people to try it these days, nice vid a always Roger
Cheers Martin.
Nice Portraits! Well done! I prefer natural light and longer exposures! 1/8th there about! Face muscles move slightly and give give a different look! Flash freezes weird expressions! My opinion..
I used trix just once in me life. One day i will test Them out intensively and keep using
Hey Gianni!
Bit of a late comment here but I just recently grabbed a ten pack of 120 of this film and 50 sheets of Ilford RC paper for a good price. I look forward taking some portrait shots with it. Gonna try some FPP Wolfman as well for the punchie contrast. I think I have a prospect model who seems interested in doing a shoot. Now to find some good locations before winter sets in! LOL!! I think your portraits with this film turned out AWESOME!!
Thanks!
yes, Tri-X and Tmax are my main two films that I use! they are both amazing. nothing else out there even compares to them. I have used too many different films to even count over the years and its always fun to try out new ones as the pop up, but I always come back to my Tri-X and Tmax.
You are right nothing else compares to them, thats because everything else is on a higher level. Ilford puts Kodak to shame.
Right on!
@@eccentricsmithy2746 My film can beat up your film.
I am usually an HP5 guy, but got a good deal on Tri-X and have been using that, chunky, but classic feel ... still prefer HP5!!!
Agreed. Which developer you use? I’m fully converted to rodinal
@@markgarcia8253 I use Rodinal as well.
If i get my hands on it at my local photo shop i use it....been using TX 400 since late 80:s and learned photgraphing with it.
Can't you get it online Bjorn?
I just finished my first roll of 135. I bought two rolls since HP5+ was out of stock.
In the past I shot a few rolls 120, it was a hell to get them on Patterson reels. Now HP5+ is my most used b/w Film
HP5 is a very good film Uwe.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss yes I know, I shot 40/50 rolls of it in medium format the past years
I've been shooting alot of portraits on Eastman XX and Silberra U400 lately. Beautiful films.
I have a few rolls of XX. May try that. Cheers.
It has a very dramatic contrast and grain. A green filter in harsh daylight has given me some of my favorite portraits on XX. Good luck!! 🙂
Tri-X has a unique look, so I use it for special occasions. Your negs are certainly underdeveloped.
I know :(
I liked Tri-X, but I also liked Caffenol and the processing times were unjustifiably long.
I use 120 Tri-X for cityscapes. Always been my favorite, though lately it's gotten a bit pricey. I always have a few rolls on hand though.
Yeah it is pricey film. Shame.
Tri-x is My preferred 400 speed film. I like the highlights much better than the glow in hp5. I do suggest that you try it in 120. 35mm is not where tri-x shines IMO.. Also try tri-x in Xtol. That’s my favorite combo. Nice to see you trying tri-x though. I’m not a fan of hp5 when compared to tri-x. Peace!
Cheers Ron
The Naked Photographer did a brilliant comparison - essentially, HP5 and Tri-X are virtually the same. My guess is that the decades long (centuries now, I guess) competition between Ilford and Kodak converged to the essentially same perfect emulsion for a 400 speed film. So the only factor of choice should be your position relative to the Atlantic, usually correlated with its price.
The only visible difference is the heavier base of HP5 - but that is only an issue with bad scanning technique (those voices claiming HP5 is flatter, etc.). There should be no difference with darkroom enlarger or proper scanning technique.
TRI-X 400 best B&W street portrait film bar none
This is all I use now a days. It has good grain size that I can see.
Kodak forever!
i shoot on tmax 400 but the quality is incomparable in regards to it being ; some of the sharpest film without too much contrast; for me gives me the best look from a BW photo. not sure if the Tmax is any different in quality.
Great portraits and over all entertaining ideo. I’ve never shot that film before (because of cost) but it looks really good. Great job on the darkroom!
Cheers Rob.
Hi Rog. My solution would be to rate the film at 200 next time, keeping everything else the same.
Cheers Mike.
When Tr-X was CHEEEPER in the Good Old Days of the 1960's and I was a member of Barking Photographic Society in Essex ( England) we had Ron Spillman the Photo Author and Photo Journalist come and he told us about using May & Baker's PROMICROL powder at 1+2 for 15 mins which I tried on a Portrait Night and got a good 20x16 " Grain-Free Print on Kentmere Kentona which won me lots of awards ---- NOW any 'Gift or Cheap' film I get is always ILFORD HP5 ---- and poor old Powder Promicrol no more as the 'HEAP Sulphate' in it was discovered to be Cargenogenic and the workers refused to make it any more.
Love to see what you think of Tri X now Pete
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Hi Roger Mate !! Well haven't had any to use for a LONG TIME-- last was well outdated , foggy and grainy but years ago when I DID use it found it much better than Ilford HP4 for local Press Work, 'sharper' BUT the Local Newspaper had an account with ILFORD Ltd and supplied me with HP4 then HP5 in lieu of giving me a 'rise' on my monthly 'Retainer' -- would love to try FRESH Tri-X in my Home-Made ID 11 and Crawley FX-4 formulas . ( any offers ?
I think your developer is not the problem and Kodak recommendations just aim for a lower contrast negative, hence a shorter development time. If you compare Tri X times in D-76 and ID-11 (which is essentially the same stuff), D-76 is 9:45 and ID-11 11:00 for 1:1 dilution. So the manufacturers just have different preference in mind giving these recommended dev times. Another option would be to meter for the shadows (I know you know this already) and try what results you get. Anyway, thank you for the great video again!
Yes, the edge marking was also faded. I've yet to test the d76 with another film.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Oh, I did miss that part. But anyway, the different targets are a thing. I have not shot that much Tri X myself but a friend who's used it for ages also said there was a change at some point. And even though Tri X has been around a long time, it's not the same recipe it used to be.
@@musiqueer No it's changed over the decades apparently
given's kodak's recent announcement that they'll be hiking their film prices by at least another 20% in 2022, i'm pretty sure i'll be leaning heavily on other film manufacturers. they're selling significantly more film now than they were in 2015 and yet they've been spinning up the price increases in a manner that feels very much like a money grab. this recent increase will be at least the third significant increase in less than two years. fortunately we have a lot of options for black and white, but i really feel for the cats in the color scene.
It's almost as if Kodak want to price everyone out of using film, one of the biggest parts of their business. You couldn't make it up.
Comfort yourself by realizing that all money today is mere pretend, certainly the US dollar is pretend. It is whipped up out of thin air by fools drunk with power and with stupidity of epic proportions who cannot even reason. So, don't let the bastards get you down.
I've just checked, and I've got 10 rolls in the freezer , 7 rolls in the fridge and 5 rolls in my camera bag. I bought it when it was £5 a roll.
😂😂😂
last time i stocked up on BW film this was cheaper than HP5. The prices have flipped again so may be going back to HP5.
Interesting to know. Cheers Jose.
Good video of a great film. Do you know the work of the late, great Jane Bown - portrait photographer for the Observer? She famously only used natural light, an OM-1 with 50 an 85 mm lenses and yes, only Tri-X. Well worth a look.
Thanks for the info John! I'll check her out.
I remember her now! I watched a video about her on YT!
I'd like to shoot it and find its the best film for Rodinal, but it's always been too expensive for me.
Love your craft
I'm a bit old to take it up again or maybe too lazy
I've a couple of SLR'S and I might shoot with them develop the negs and scan.
Is this cheeting? 😂📷👍
It's not cheating. Just another way of taking photographs ☺️
400TX sure is a classic, though I'm not a fan of the longitudinal curling the film base of late gives. HP5 dries flat as a board in comparison, and looks similar enough.
I've read that a few times, I found this to be pretty flat.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss I wonder if there's a difference in film base between 400TX in the UK and the US. Every roll of 400TX I've seen come through my lab curls along the length and is very difficult to flatten out for scanning. It's been that way for a couple years now. HP5 on the other hand (and actually pretty much every Ilford film) dries pretty flat. Weird.
We all have our pet likes and dislikes - one of my likes is Tri-X in D76. It's way too expensive for me now though so I'm using Ilford Delta 400 in ID-11. Seems to be a reasonable trade-off but oh for the days of cheap Tri-X, I'd shoot ten rolls a week back then and a roll of Tmax if Jessops were out of stock on the Tri-X. Times change, but now you've used it, you know what all the fuss was about. Tri-X in D76, it just works. I can't speak for why your D76 seemed to under develop your film, all I can suggest is the common-sense measure of trying again with a different batch. D76 will age in the packet though, something to do with it being a one-part mix. ID-11 is a two part mix and Ilford state it'll last for ever if stored unmixed and unopened. Stick a roll of HP5 through that D76, see if that comes out under-developed too??
Cheers Lloyd. I use ID11 mostly but never had issues with D76 before. I had similar a couple of times with XTOL (Which is why I walked over to ID11).
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss ID-11 and D76 are supposedly identical, try a roll in ID-11 and see what happens. Back in the day I only ever got under-developed Tri-X (with D76) if I rushed it or if the tank got cold without me noticing, my main problem was making sure the new Tmax was fixed!
Just use Rodinal lol. Problem solved. Brand new batch every time
I am just going to end a 30m/100ft bulk roll of 400TX, but I don’t like it anymore and it is too expensive. I’ll switch back to HP5 for FF, MF and LF, that is so nice to push‘n‘pull. Less is more, less film stocks and developers and shooting more quality (or at least trying it). I’m tired of using so much film stocks and having the fridge full of it.
Best price I have seen so far for 100ft is about £130.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss I bought mine through Dec/Jan 2021 for little bit over 100€ in Netherlands.
Noticed since Kodak moved the chemical production to china the quality of their products dropped. I had the same problems with D76 as you. Also xtol from kodak is really not usable at the moment.
I've had the same with XTOL twice this year. Interesting you mention it.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Adox xt-3 is a good xtol replacement if you are looking for one. Keep up the great channel cheers!
Yes I used that earlier this year. Environment friendly dev.
i tried it once, and the same happened, underdevelopped as heck. seeing the price i was a bit gutted
Henri Cartier Bresson used Tri-X exclusively sense it came out in 1940..............Enough said.
Never had the pleasure of trying Tri-X; my go-to is T-Max 100. The grain when pushing it to 400 is really nice. I got a bunch of it on sale quite cheap at Adorama, so I've been experimenting with it without too much financial pain.
Another good film Dane.
A guy called Anton Corbijn uses tri-x to photograph Metallica and other bands. The rumour is that when Kodak filed for bankruptcy a few years ago he ordered 10000 rolls of it.
10k rolls! Thats an insane amount ha ha
Too bad it was underdeveloped, skin tones with this film usually have something special even for non caucasians. Tri-X, who else uses it ? Well, anyone that doesn't want the (outdoor) "everything looks like England with Hp5" vibe and can afford the extra price... It was the second B&W film I tried and still my favorite so far.
Price of a roll. What causes the white specks on the film? I've seen that with some of the rolls I get developed
I didn't see any white specs. If you're referring to the print that's water droplets shining in the light
I loved Tri-X. This Film now is not the same! It's crap! Plain simple Du-Du. It freaking curls like Shirley Temples curls! Impossible to scan properly. Maybe Kodak will fix it! There's always HP5+, Kentmere and cost 1/2!