Kodak Tri-X 400 Black and White Film Review | All about Film
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 апр 2017
- Kodak's Tri-X 400 dates back to the 1940s and has a robust, strong research DNA that resulted in a film with excellent image qualities, the ability to see light well into the UV range, and a tolerance for abuse that makes it possible to shoot it at virtually any realistic ISO. This video presents more than 150 sample photos developed using 24 different developer and ISO combinations over a three-year span. The results show the film working well and not so well. This video's goal is to educate and inform Kodak Tri-X 400 users and help them recognize what the film can and cannot do.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @davidhancock
David Hancock's Amazon Author Page with Links to Select Camera Manual eBooks:
www.amazon.com/David-Hancock/...
Video Subject Index:
Skip the Intro: 0:36
Film Type: 0:37
Rated ISO: 1:07
Available Formats: 1:42
Subjective Film Characteristics: 1:48
Spectral Sensitivity: 7:10
Characteristic Curve: 19:19
Reciprocity Failure: 12:27
Contrast Curve: 14:32
Recommended Developers: 15:32
Developers to Avoid: 16:05
Development Latitude: 16:34
Recommended Camera Settings: 17:36
Sample Photos and Thoughts: 19:00
Sample Photo Index:
D-76 Stock, 400 ISO: 1:53
D-76 1+1, 400 ISO: 2:25
D-76 1+3, 400 ISO: 3:49
L110 1+31 (HC110 Dilution B), 400 ISO: 4:05
RPX-D 1+15, 400 ISO: 4:40
Ultrafin Plus 1+6, 400 ISO: 5:01
Unknown Developer and Time, Likely D-76 Stock for 12:30), 400 ISO: 5:17
D-76 Stock, 800 ISO: 5:33
D-76 Stock, 1600 ISO, 5:49
D-76 1+1, 800 ISO, for 10 minutes: 6:32
D-76 1+1, 800 ISO, for 14 minutes: 6:56
D-76 1+1, 1600 ISO: 8:19
D-76 1+1, 3200 ISO: 8:31
D-76 1+3, 200 ISO: 8:47
Ilfosol 3 1+14, 3200 ISO: 12:52
Rodinal 1+25, 3200 ISO: 13:13
L110 1+31 (HC110 Dilution B), 3200 ISO: 15:39
Rodinal 1+50, 6400 ISO: 15:47
Rodinal 1+50, 3125 ISO: 16:10
Rodinal 1+50, 800 ISO: 16:40
Rodinal 1+50, 3200 ISO: 17:10
Rodinal 1+100 (Stand), 800 ISO: 18:05
Rodinal 1+100 (Stand), 1600 ISO: 18:19
Rodinal 1+100 (Stand), 3200 ISO: 18:38
References:
imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/...
www.digitaltruth.com/devchart....
www.apug.org/forums/forum.php
istillshootfilm.org/
www.filmsnotdead.com/
plus.google.com/u/0/communiti...
www.sprawls.org/ppmi2/FILMCON
motion.kodak.com/motion/upload...
motion.kodak.com/motion/upload...
www.covingtoninnovations.com/d...
home.comcast.net/~amitphotogra...
www.nfsa.gov.au/preservation/h... 
Хобби
This guy is a complete nerd... and I like it!
Thank you!
Agree with the highest degree of admiration
Really, really beautiful - David. Lots of info - so will need to watch over and over again to get as much as I can from it. Took a lot of notes! Love the sample photographs also. I can't say too much about how much I enjoyed your report on my old friend, Tri-X!
Thank you! :D
Great review on my favorite black and white film. I cannot count how many rolls of that stuff I exposed. I used to have my own dark room equipment where I could experiment. I had similar result with pushing it as well. Film is a lost art. I remember we were limited in tools to recover any shot taken. You hoped that your in-camera meter was correct or you had a lot of dark room work to do. I look back and remember a sense of accomplishment when I produced a great image. It was work and sometimes luck. The luxury of instantly checking if the shot was good did not exist. We bracketed and that was as good as we could do in the field. I remember trying T-MAX 400 when it came out. I freaked out after I developed my first roll because the negatives looked purple. I shot several rolls of that stuff but did not like the contrast or tunes that it delivered. Maybe I was biased because I was so used to Tri-X. Thanks for the memory lane. I still have my film cameras but no ways to process the rolls myself. I never liked the results I got from sending it out for processing.
Thank you, Phil! I also tend to prefer this to TMax 400. I find the TMax films, writ large, very hard to work with and much harder on my water bill when it comes time to rinse them.
Awesome video, very detailed and very informative. Thank you so much for taking the time to make this video 👍😎
Thank you!
Thanks so much David. This is the best video article I have ever seen about TX 400. It's been my favorite film for 35 years. I've tried Ilford I've tried others and I just keep coming back to it for all the reasons you outlined in your video. I used to work in the dark room and develop and print all my own stuff I don't do that anymore. I lost access to my dark room and never went back because I found a young whippersnapper who's really great in the dark room. One of the things I've learned about trikes 400, and I would like to hear your comments about this, is I pull it to 200 to punch up the contrast. Sometimes I shoot that without a filter, but if I want it really punch here I put a green filter on it or a red one for clouds and to turn red into white. when I turn the film in I don't mention that I pulled it. I just say hey process it with d76 and let me know when it's ready for pickup. And I get some beautiful negatives. Am I crazy?
I don't think you're crazy. This stock is very forgiving. So overexposure by a stop is well within the film's bounds.
@@DavidHancock thanks so much. I like the prince. Now I honestly don't know if he's making adjustments in the printing process but the contact sheets look excellent. I think I should ask him, or maybe attach a note: "develop it 400." I failed to mention that I like to shoot portraits on overcast days or in open shade. Hence the pulling to 200. If I was out shooting in bright sunlight I probably wouldn't do that. I might even step it down a stop to 800. One thing I've learned from you is that I should experiment with it and see what is what. Have a great day.
I used tons of both Tri-X and Plus-X in the 70's and 80's. Both great stuff.
But, for crisp enlargements from 8x10 or larger, I'd chose the Plus-X every time.
Plus-X was a fantastic film, one of my two or three favorite black and white films ever made.
Exposure recommendations for normal use: Set incident meter at 400. For bright sunlight or other high-contrast scenes, put the meter in shadow, take a reading, and set the camera to one-half stop less exposure. For example, if the meter indicates f/11 at 125, set the camera to f/13 at 125. For medium contrast, say a bright cloudy day with soft shadows, take a reading in shadow and set the camera to the meter's indicated exposure. For low contrast scenes (full shade for example) give one-half stop more exposure than indicated. Actual indicated exposure will probably work, but the extra half-stop protects against small errors. If you're tied to auto exposure, rating it at 125 will always produce an excellent negative, but the density will vary depending on lighting. Using the incident/shadow method will produce negatives of consistent density. Like you, I love Tri-X. It contends with Ektachrome 100(EPN) as the best film Kodak ever made. I never tried to push it, but I'm tempted to try it just for fun.
Thank you! ri-X, I think, has more tolerance for exposure latitude than any other film I've used (still true today.)
I just got into film photography and I’ve learned so much from this video. Thanks so much!
Thank you!
Very thorough, yet entertaining. Perfect example that grain is not as strictly connected with sharpness as commonly assumed.
Thank you!
Much prefer this over HP5+. The grain, contrast and mid tones are better in every way IMO. Very versatile film and is my favourite old-school grain ISO 400 film. Wish I could get it in 100ft over the pond.
I would pick this over HP5+, too. You might be able to order 100 foot rolls from Freestyle or B&H here in the U.S. with international shipping.
Great vid David. Thanks. Love these film vids.
Thank you!
Great review. I just shot my first roll of Tri-x last month. I was surprised how much I liked it being that when it comes to Kodak I've mostly shot Tmax. I will definitely buy mote in the future.
Thank you! I ended up liking this more than TMax. It's a lot easier to handle in developing even though there's more grain.
Thanks so much for this, David. My All-time Stars from Kodak since Teenager Days are: 1) Kodak T-Max 100, 2) Tri-X 400/TX-400 3) Kodak Ektar 100
Thank you, Marc. Those are some really good film stocks, too. I like all three a lot.
Thank you so much, learned and understood so many things, would love if you could do one with Portra 400
Thank you!
Portra 400 is in the next batch. I'm finishing up the next five videos in this series soon. Portra 400 will be in the group that are completed after those five.
The Kodak holy trinity of BW films back in my day were Tri-X (ASA 400),Plus-X (ASA 125) and Panatomic-X (ASA 32).T-X was the darling of photojournalists from SE Asia,the Middle East and the streets of any urban landscape.Plus-X was the film student photographers cut their teeth on,lovely gray scale,finer grain than T-X,a delight outdoors for woods and water,sea,sky,architecture and indoors using flash judiciously.Pan-X was a slow fine grained film more at home in large format instruments though it was available in 35 mm.The beauty and richness of this film was shown to me by a friend who taught photography and printed some 4×5 negatives by contact printing some portraits he had taken. Incredibly beautiful. Alas we're left with Tri-X alone.
Yeah, I miss Plus-X. That was one of my favorite films. I bought up the last stock in the Bay Area in 2012 and it lasted me until early 2015, even though it had expired in 2010 or 2011. I wish they'd kept that and nixed TMax 100.
@@DavidHancock the closest modern film to Panatomic-x is Catlabs X80 which ive heard rumors is made by kodak but finished by shanghai films as far as backing paper goes. A fantastic film as well. I shoot a lot of it in 4x5 because its so contrasty and so rich in detail.
Ilford Pan-F 50 is very nice, maybe that is an adequate substitute?
Your my hero David. Thanks for all the hard work.
Thank you!
Excellent informative video! TRI-X is the only film which gives me good shadow detail while maintaining plenty of detail in the highlights. I use Ilfotec LC29, when I've exposed it at ISO 400 and Rodinal 1:100, with a two hour stand development when I've pushed it to 1600. The Ilford factory is only 30 miles away, and maybe I should support them, but TRI-X is simply wonderful!
Thank you, Ian!
Using Ilfotec, you're still supporting Ilford. :D
wow, very nice video!
Best tri-x review I've ever seen.
Thank you!
Thank you for making this.
Thank you!
That must have taken you ages to make - a lot of work invested there and for that I thank you. Great job.
Yes. Each of these videos, with a couple of exceptions, takes about three to four years to make from the first time I use the film until the video goes live. The Ektar video I just releases last year started in June 2014 and I used my last roll of Ektar five weeks ago. The big upshot to that is that there's a great diversity in the photos and they weren't all taken in a single day or shoot.
This is so good! Please make one on Ilford Hp5
I will, but I'm not sure when it will happen.
Thanks David.
Thank you!
Hello David, Very cool and informative video, as always. I find out a lot of information on regular photographic films than I find anywhere else, and I am grateful for that. One simple, honest question: where have you found TRI-X 400 bulk roll of film??? I have been looking everywhere for it. I eventually turned to Ilford's HP5. Thanks and looking forward for the next video.
Thank you!
For the bulk rolls, Freestyle Photo, Adorama, B&H, and Photo Warehouse should all stock it regularly. If you're outside the U.S., I'm not sure who would stock it.
I found some shops in the UK but the price....190 Pounds without shipment! Damn son! HP5 can be found at MacoDirect with 71 euros, so big difference. But now I know where to find TRI-X 400 bulk.
Great vid thank you
Thank you!
glad to see you're continuing the film series
Oh yeah. I enjoy these a lot. I wish I could make one a month. They take a LOT of work. In rough terms, no photo capture, developing, and editing included, these take around 100 hours to make. Including all the handling time, they're probably north of 800. I started using Tri-X for this video in mid-2015.
David Hancock wow yeah that makes sense. thanks for sharing your efforts!
Thank you for your feedback. These are a labor of love, so it means a lot when viewers appreciate them and comment.
I'm going to be shooting some Tri X today in New York City pushing it to 1600
Nice! That's going to be a great combination.
Terrific information. RS
Thank you!
Awesome
Thank you!
Excellent info on my favourite film David, the only thing wrong with Tri-X is the price in the UK!
Thank you! The price in the U.S. isn't all that fun anymore, either. :D
Love those aircraft photos
Thank you!
I have found DDX works amazingly well with Tri-X, especially pushing it to 1600. You get a very clean high (but not too much so) contrast, fairly fine grain and super high acutance.
Nice! Thank you. What time do you use for that?
항상 응원합니다. 새해 복 많이 받으시길!
감사합니다. 새해 복 많이 받으세요!
Even tho I shot my weight in Tri-X back in the 1970's, I'm blown away by the amazing fine grain structure of T-Max. In fact, many folks don't care for T-Max because it almost looks digital! Even tho I love T-Max, I do feel very very comfortable shooting the Tri-X, and I prefer it over most other BW films, other than T-Max. Have never shot Neopan Acros, but would love to.
I agree that TMax almost looks too smooth. But I do love the rich tones in it. I'm not sure which I prefer, but Tri-X I find to be far more versatile and forgiving.
Excellent review, I wish more people would be as comprehensive as this. While i know Tri-X has had many changes to it over the years, Ansel Adams and others tested it and found that the true speed of this film is 160 asa. I have found several rolls of this film both 120 and 35mm in my fridge and hope to shoot it at 200 asa with D76 and Perceptol with various cameras. Can you please do a review on the new Bergger 400 B&W film when time allows. p.s. Eric Dubay says that gravity does not exist, it is density.
Eric may be splitting hairs. :D
I'm hoping to do a Bergger review. They seem to phase their stocks out of production quickly, so with the lead times these videos have, Bergger is hard to do. I like BRF 400+ a good deal, but it's out of production now in favor of the Panchro, which I really want to use soon.
Can't wait for the Ektar review!.
Wonderful review on Tri-X.
Thank you!
Ektar is my favorite film, and i will probably be this year. I need to shot some more 4X5 with it first.
David Hancock Ektar is amazing stuff.. I don't have much opportunity to shoot 100 ISO film here in Scotland, so I took to pushing Ektar to 400.. The effect is a slight increase in grain and the colour palette is more 'subdued', almost pastel.. I like it ☺️
I realized, making this one, that I should make which are not 35mm. The FP4+, Acros, and Lomo 800 videos have MF, but I don't think I indicated which were not 35mm.
Nice! I'd like to see how that looks.
Have you tried just shooting Portra 400? Sounds as though it is very much the same.
Otherwise if you want the ultimate speed AFAIK the fastest colourfilm is Fuji Superia 1600. Really superp film! Saturated colors and grain not unlike Tri-X. And, can be pushed to 3200 without being a total grainfest.
the formula with rodinal that works best is 1:100 for 1 hour and only agitate once at the start and once at 30 minutes. Stand development really makes the contrast awesome.
That's a really good way to do it. Thank you!
Hi David, thank you again for the effort you put into these scientific studies of film processing. This one has me a bit confused... after the first few beautifully exposed photos I see a lot of shadows being crushed (across multiple developers) in a manner that implies (deliberate?) efforts to test the boundaries of the development variations. Is there a recommended developer/mix/time from Kodak themselves? Thanks,
Thank you. Some of it has to do with this video being made over many years and my own skill in photography and digitizing improving in that window and some has to do with the way that the film performed with those chemistries.
@@DavidHancock Awesome, thanks David. I always look towards picking up tips (film/developer combinations) from your research and had difficulty in this one. Considering Tri-X's popularity, would you consider re-visiting this film in a future episode? It can be just a single roll in your favourite camera using your distilled knowledge of chemistry over the years. Thanks,
This is a fantastic series, any chance of reviewing Kodak Portra 160, 400 and 800; and the Kodak Tmax series film? I appreciate the detail, time an effort you put into this series, thank you.
One of the Portras (not sure which) will definitely be in the next batch of videos. I may also do TMax 100 in the next batch, too. I just released my Ektar video last week. PanF+, Velvia 50, Double-X 5222, and Rollei CN200 are the next four in line.
@@DavidHancock I am so glad I came across your channel, I shoot 35mm, 120 and 4x5, which I have picked up again after a 15 yr break. I used to shoot Agfa Ultra, and Optima film as well as the RSX slide films. Obviously, all has changed since Agfa are no longer around and I am finding my feet with other film stocks I never shot. Keep up the good work, great channel! I look forward to the new reviews.
Respect man! This is why I keep faith in humanity. Amazing and professional video!
Thank you!
Well stated!
Excellent video! Nice film too, although I don't shoot it very often, as its the most expensive 400 ISO BW film where I live (Eastern-Europe).
Thank you!
I would guess that your Foma costs are very reasonable, though. Foma 400 is a good film, too. I like the Foma products that I've used.
Foma is indeed the cheapest, followed by Kentmere and Rollei. Fuji Neopan 400 was the most expensive 400 film over here, no longer produced though. Probably was the cheapest in Japan/Hong Kong :D
Great video... So best all around developer for TRI X?... D76? Tmax developer?
Thank you! I think that the "Recommended Developers" section covers that as well as I can. Ultimately, developer choice is a matter of aesthetic intent and I would say that I liked the results on some more than others.
David, great video ! Tri-X is my favorite B/W film, and have shot hundreds of rolls in the late 60's and 70's on a Miranda F and Sensorex. All developed in D76. Now being the procrastinator I am, I found 7 rolls of Tri-X exposed in the mid 70's and put away at room temperature. What's your suggestion for a developer that would minimize fog and hopefully salvage what I can. I have HC-110, D76 and Rodinal on hand. Of course I have a few bottles of Rodinal and one is 30 years old! LOL !!!!!
Thank you!
Wow, developing old film is always tricky. I developed an old roll of 122 film that was stored at room temperature for almost 70 years. It turned out well. I developed it in D-76 1+3, I think (in a cardboard tube spray-painted black inside, but that's another story.) I would think that a low-fog dilution would work best, and to that end a dilute developer would be the ideal solution. Were it me, I'd try one, see how it looks, and adjust from there. It might even be worth giving stand development a shot.
The best black and white film, even today
Fun fact:
Jim Marshall rated Tri x at 800 and developed in Acufine for 5:30-6 minutes
Henry Wessel jr exposed Tri x at 100 iso and used d76 1:1 for 7:30
I love Kodak p3200 also
Nice and thank you!
Great video.. I've developed Tri-X using HC-110 in a dilution of 1:50 (I prefer it to dilution B), and have had nice results with 1:100 (Semi-Stand) for pushing 2 and 3 stops (that's as far as I've managed so far). I've found, in my limited experience, these dilutions produce less contrasty negative, for scanning.
I've also used Ilford DD-X (Dilution 1:4) with Tri-X shot at 2000 ISO. I enjoy shooting Interiors of Medieval buildings around the country and I think it works well for that.
I've shot it to date from 50 - 2000, It's great stuff..
I've also had nice results using a K2 filter in general, O(G) Filter for landscapes/medieval building exteriors and an X(0)filter for outdoor portraits.
I'd like to have tried Tri-X in Xtol but it only comes in 5 Litres, so I've bought Fomadon Excel W27 developer to try, which is said to be similar to Kodak Xtol but comes in 1 litre batches.
Thank you!
I'm not sure why XTOL as 5 liters as the smallest pack. That's not a convenient unit of measure anywhere in the world.
How do the DD-X results look?
David Hancock This was a shot from inside York Minster [Cathedral] (the only one I have scanned at the moment). It was the first time I shot medium format film and used DD-X Developer with Tri-X: flic.kr/p/SdfPJP
Oh wow. That's a good shot, and the technical details are all spot-on, too.
David Hancock It was really dark in that place, I had to rest my trusty old Yashica-Mat on a chair (I love that camera ☺️), and I think the exposure was down as low as 1/4 Sec.. Perhaps I should have pushed the film more, but I had no idea what to expect from the film or the developer.. and I forgot my light meter haha.
Anyway, it's a nice reminder of ny visit.. it's hard to believe that building is about 1000 yrs old. I highly recommend a trip to York 😀
Have you had the opportunity to try the new Bergger Pancro400 film yet? I bought a few rolls each of 35mm and 120. I'm testing Delta 400 in both formats at the moment, but the Pancro is next . I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on it, if you've tried it. Your thoughts on Delta too would be gratefully received.
This videos series is tremendous, as I appreciate how much work must go into them. Thanks again.
Thank you!
I've used Bergger's BRF+ 400, which is out of production now. I liked it a lot and was hoping to make a video on it. Before I make a video on their Pancro, I'll need to be a bit more certain that they aren't just going to discontinue their film stock and release a new one every two years, which has been their MO for the past few films.
Delta is great. The 400 is spectacular stuff. I like the 100 even more and push the 100 to 400 ISO sometimes with great results. Delta is definitely Ilford's best line.
Not yet. Once I'm back on my feet and have a chance to shoot through some of my backlogged film stock, I will.
David Hancock With a good deal of practice.. I think I could definitely get to like Ilford Delta 400. The example is shot with a Hoya O(G) Filter, and pushed one in DD-X.
flickr.com - Lens & Film Test: Ilford Delta 400 and Takumar 35mm f/3.5 [on a Pentax Spotmatic SP ii] + Hoya O(G) Filter
I want to check those out as well.
you talk about clone scarring. Have you tried using the spot healing tool? I find it works wonders for dust and scratches. You just have to be very careful and precise on edges and use a small brush size. I'm considering returning to Tri-X as I've heard it works well with Rodinal.
In CS6, I use spot healing, area healing, and the standard close healing. It's doable to prevent it, but harder than on many films and just something to be mindful of. I was cought off-guard when I first started using high-ISO films with just how severe it could be in places.
When it comes to pushing to 6400 Microphen is your best friend - gives very pleasing results - sure the contrast can be stupid but its less than other developers. same with hp5. A strip test at 6400 in stock microphen at 20 degrees for me is about 18 mins although for anything this long I swap the used developer half way through for fresh dev
Nice! I don't think I've ever used Microphen before. Thank you.
Its a good one - if you have a good combination of shooting technique and development microphen can really improve the overall image quality on pushed shots
Great vid, and very informative. Well worth waiting for.
1:33 I thought TMY was the abbreviation for TMax?
Thanks for the warning on Ilfosol. I was going to switch to this, but I might put the box of TriX away until I finish the bottle and see whether it's the bee's knees for Tmax or whether the pain of mixing D76 powder is worth it.
Oh shoot! I grabbed the wrong 120 unwrapping footage. Good catch.
The only Ilford developer I've tried with Tri-X was Ilfosol 3, and I didn't care for the results. Ilfotec and others, who knows, they may be great. But in general, I haven't been a huge fan of how Ilfosol handles non-Ilford film.
Do you have a vid on digitzing/editing negatives in raw format
I do.
ruclips.net/video/Xh8vJCvsZtY/видео.html My current setup uses macro tubes to completely encase the space between the front of the lens and slide copier. I lined those with felt and that's helped a LOT with improving contrast and eliminating glare.
ruclips.net/video/ot_vVjlBLmk/видео.html My current set up holds the negatives in the carrier and mounts the carrier above a light table used for tracing. That eliminates interference lines and improves quality.
ruclips.net/video/Wc9bq1ySuJg/видео.html There's my raw workflow for black and white. Shooting in raw is WAY more powerful than even the best scanners.
Hi, I used this film for the first time and a lot of my images were very underexposed. Do you have a suggestion for basic f.stop settings - sunny, indoor, dark?
Which camera are you using?
The available optimum characteristics of a film are always best at it's "native" iso, not unlike image sensors in digital cameras.
As far as I know, IISO ratings are certified by the International Standards Organisation, who apparently tested all the available emulsions
when ratings switched from ASA (American Standards Association). Some manufacturers reformulated.
Anyway, the rating is arbitrary, and it's effective speed is affected by factors such as the brightness range within the image
and the subsequent development time. Over- development increases contrast (blocking highlights if taken too far)
and under-developing helps to control the effective brightness range by lowering contrast. The entire reason for this control is to enable a print done on
Normal Grade (2) B&W paper while perfectly retaining the original tonal range. High quality prints were the aim, not digital files.
Because of this process, not every frame on a piece of roll-film can be processed perfectly unless the entire contents are shot under virtually similar conditions.
So, for one event or situation, say an artificially lit ball game, you could rate the iso higher and develop accordingly.
So do some reading and shoot carefully. Tri-X is still the most versatile film for nearly everything, as evidenced by
the thousands of famous and iconic images which have appeared on it over the years.
And to the person below, the only indication that anything is different on the edge numbering, would be is the official Kodak number changed.
Pretty much all the numbers are at this link:
www.taphilo.com/Photo/kodakfilmnumxref.shtml
Excellent points all around. Thank you!
Hi, can you do an all about developer series? Would it also be possible to have a film matrix?
lastly do you have a patreon?
thanks?
Thank you and that's one I'd like to do, and may well do that after I get through some more film stocks and camera video manuals. And I do have a Patreon: www.patreon.com/DavidHancock
used to shoot 400TX exclusively until I developed a taste for Ilford HP5+, which I think is superior (in my opinion). you are spot-on as far as the grain is concerned compared to HP5+.
HP5+ is still mixed for me. I like the added availability in LF and the added grayscale layer that improves tonality. The cost is better. I can't fault anyone for liking it because it is a great film, and the engineering behind HP5+ is great. In general I am less fond of Ilford image grain structure than I am of equivalent Kodak options. But that's purely an aesthetic preference and nothing that I'd hold against Ilford. I like most of their films a lot.
well, it's BW film we are talking about. it is something that can start world war 3 and is even more difficult to judge than which instant coffee tastes better. The deciding factor for me was the HP5+ contrast. I know that 400TX is supposed to be superior with this but it may have to do with so many things. one of the biggest things that I like about Ilford films is how FLAT they are.
Yes, for digitization especially, I like that. I prefer a flatter negative. Contrast can be added, not removed.
Interesting. I recently shot my first roll of Tri-X in many years, trying for that "cinematic tonality" (EI 200) but got something very different. I developed it myself (a first) and got major film grain (caucasian skin looked dirty, daylight skies had very "thick" highlights). This roll combined both interiors with flash and without, and bright sunshine outdoors.
I'm in the process of learning what went wrong. But in general I used D76 at 1:3 for 10 minutes, based on some random suggestion found online. By your notes in this video, that (i.e. the time differential) means I underdeveloped. Pretty sure I agitated quicker and more often than I should have, and totally forgot about temperature, doing it at about 75 degrees or so because I had just mixed the D76 on the stovetop and it hadn't completely cooled down yet.
So those aspects should have "compensated" for the short dev time (my understanding). Again, not intentional on my part, and overall they turned out OK with plenty of room to tweak the scans later. Just not the freaking smooth TONE I was going after.
Then again, the massive dev chart suggests 16:30, not the 12 minutes you did. None of this really sounds repeatable to me, yet.
I'm going to guess that the temperature was the key factor in your highlights and grain issue. Warm temperatures have way more affect on developing than time. Most of the film's development happens in the first couple of minutes with the balance of the time increasing tonal range and detail. Warm chemistry would make those first couple of minutes way more active than they should be, leading to thick negatives and dense grain.
Thanks for that. I plan to do at least another roll, this one a more proper test with -1EV, 0EV, and +1EV exposure bracketing. I need to nail down what ISO 200-400-800 looks like for Tri-X with my developer setup. And I will definitely watch my temps this time!
Thanks!!! How to deal with this if we don’t do our own printing??
Thank you! If you don't print at home, which I don't either, then simply use a digital service. I use Shutterfly a lot. I find that their print quality meets my needs. If you plan to print for resale, though, you may need a printer that is not a consumer- and volume-oriented shop. I don't have any recommendations for that, unfortunately.
David,again great organized info on video,thanks!
Since you don’t print why don’t you just shoot digital?
I’m kinda new in digital; D850/D800 and just started learning C1 but got an old range finder for film.Is shooting in film, B+W worth the time?
Is the look that much different?(timeless look)
Most labs use a color paper how does that translate?
Good question. I do shoot a lot of digital. It's an easier workflow and I do tend to have better results, just as an empirical observation. However, I prefer to shoot film. I likely won't ever own a medium-format or large-format digital camera and I really enjoy shooting those formats. But even with 35mm, I find that shooting film makes me pickier about which photos I take and that translates into my digital work because it makes me pickier when using a digital camera, too.
Also for medium- and large-format, there's no real equivalent in digital at all.
For color lab printing or black and white images, that depends on your lab but often the prints will have some minor color cast of either blue, magenta, or green. Some labs are great and there is no color cast, however.
@@DavidHancock this is all very helpful in figuring out where and when to direct my energy when I learn C1 software my photography will be much more rewarding .A long time ago I learned on film and very concerned with exposure to the point that composition suffered..between film and digital i hope to loosen up.I look forward to pushing and pulling to your info really motivated me.Great job David!
I miss Plus-X
Same here. That was a downright magical film stock.
have you tried Ilford XP2 400? Is it any good?
I have not. I have heard that people either like it or dislike it with no apparent middle ground.
Panchromatic Kentmere 400 : )
It's not the film it was in the 1960s and 70s.
It had a specific edge number.
Now it does not have that. I have lots of old negatives and the sharpness and contrast is stunning.
I still use it.
It's great.
I have a Pentax 67.
I think I just like yellow film boxes.
Kodachrome come back.
Yeah, the formulation has changed as chemicals become unavailable or prohibitively expensive.
Pentax 67, lucky bloke!
Personally, I’m shooting fast-moving low-light music shows with TriX rated at 6400 iso, it’s grainy but it gives an incredible contrast to the pictures and is still easy to scan.
I tried with HP5+ recently and it rendered horrible in the same conditions!
I’m using 24° xtol and I’m processing for 17 minutes or so, I uploaded my settings to the Massive Dev Chart as I had to be the only idiot to ever try that!
Wow, yeah, that's a pretty intense development.
I have also found that HP5+ does not have the push latitude of Tri-X. I think the best I've done with HP5+ is 1600.
Never shot tri-x. I've been told to always try it out and pick up a roll but truth is, all this hype around it pushed me away. I've shot hp5, tmaxx and a handful of other black and white films but never tri-x. Maybe once i'm done testing out other black and white films ill try it out but for now, no tri-x haha
It's definitely worth trying out.
Kodak ruled in the Sixties with Tri.x and Kodachrome.
Fuji people were not even born then.
Kodak still rules.
Don't forget it.
I use it with Rodinal 1 to 50 .
I used tri x when I was a wedding photographer back in the Sixties.
I used Unitol then which relates to Rodinal now.
1 to 50 means hardly any developer is used.
Just get in the darkroom you computer geeks. It's so simple.
super 400 next please :)
Is Super 400 Ilford's XP-2?
As for the next one, it will be Rollei Retro 80S, which is almost done. I need to do some infrared photos with it first.
Fujifilm Superia 400. Sorry auto-incorrect lol.
Got it.
Superia 400 is a ways off. I have 16 photos with it right now, from three rolls. I would expect that I'll need to takearound 25-30 more rolls before I have enough photos that I'm happy with.
The next color film video I'm likely to do a re-packaged film that uses Fuji 200 as one of the stocks. I think I need about five more rolls for that to be complete. Other than that, everything in the short-term pike is black and white.
Most of my images with this film are overexposed, i shot with pentax 6x7 any suggestions?
Does that happen with your 6X7 and other films?
@@DavidHancock i usually shoot with fp4+ so it might be that i have never used this type of film. but i feel like it is not forgiving at all, like most people claim it is. I got images where the blacks are blown up just as the whites. Its kind of annoying. Also, i sent the film to be developed in a lab, could it be that they did not develop accordingly to this type of film?
@@eduardocheca6080 assuming you're using the 6x7 light meter prism, are you switching it from 125 to 400 when you load the film? I've definitely forgotten to do that and ruined rolls before.
I like that film a lot.. Now realised, looking ay m arhives, that most of my best b-w pictures are made with it, during 2004-2012... Once was making pics with it in Brasil in extremely sunny and bright light (by ocasion I had only 400iso film then)... The only dissapointing thing for me about the TRI-X is that I could'nt really push it to 1600 iso - had "thin" negatives, really of bad quality... maybe cos I don't use other developers, than D-76) For some reason had'n used it for few years - but few days ago have bought 4 rolls of it - haven't shoot them yet...
Nice! Yeah, it's a bit thin when pushed. It's not a great digitizing option at 1600, but in a traditional darkroom some clever use of contrast filtration and the right paper can make Tri-X a really good performer at 1600. But that's a lot of science I don't have the space to explore. :(
@@DavidHancock I see I need to rent a lab, where I can try to print in a darkroom and renew my skills in that)
Anyone try it with XTOL?
Not personally but the results should be very good.
I know Acros is iso100 so different purpose than iso400. But to my eye acros is far superior quality.
I definitely prefer Acros to Tri-X, but they're also meant for far different uses.
Very interesting video. Tri-X is my to go B&W film since the 1980’s and I find that the base ISO is 320 and not 400. However it’s very versatile depending on the ambient light intensity and the results you are going for. We all know that contrast is controlled by the time the film stays in the developer solution, but we tend to forget that we should expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. This film can have very nice and soft contrast at 6400 it all depends on how you decide to use it. This chart is a very good starting point (yes it’s Rodinal and in my opinion the best developer for this film):
andreo.ch/rodinal.html
Some of the results on this page all with Tri-X and all using the above mentioned chart:
andreo.ch/new-york.html
I have to say that even though the film has somewhat evolved this chart seems to hold, hope it’s useful!
Keep safe but keep shooting!
André
Thank you, Andre! That's a great resource and those are some good photos.
Tri-X in larger formats does make sense for it's tonality but in 35mm it's for lazy photographers who simply use it as a default because they can't be bothered to use the right film for the right conditions. It's absurd to put this grainy, mushy mess in a Leica or any high quality 35mm camera unless absolutely necessary or you're going for the Robert Frank look. Why compromise high quality optics? Why not use a sharper, finer grain film when possible? But if you are going for the grain try EI 800 and develop in Dektol for 5 min @ 70F. Rodinal at low dilutions will also give you monstrous grain.
But Tri-X in the larger formats (specifically sheet film) is a different film. The 320 ISO film has a different emulsion, different characteristics, different spectral sensitivity, and it is much less forgiving (though still not hard to use.) The largest difference between 320 and 400 is that 320 was designed to be used under artificial light in a studio, especially for portraits.
first!
I laughed so loud my stitches hurt.
"...the grain structure of TriX can leave a cloning scar on the image..."
Built-in tamper protection for your photographs. Keep the bastards honest. :p
That it is!
AcYOOtance.
uh-KYOOT-ns
www.dictionary.com/browse/acutance
I stand corrected. Normally, the stress is on the A, but I guess when there's only one C followed by a U, then it's pronounced as you say.
You're on the right track. In this case the letter u changes the word's sound. Acute stems from the Latin root acūtus. The diacritic above the "u" in the Latin root indicates that the vowel is long. That pronunciation was carried into the word acute when it was developed as an English-language word, and then all the derivatives of acute retained the long "u". In general, when words end in "e" and have a "u" within a few letters of the end, then "u" becomes long. That may hold true for all vowels; i can't recall for sure and it's been a long time since my last linguistics class. :(
Goes to show, you never know who you're dealing with. Arguing with a grammar expert....something like unknowingly attacking a martial-artist. At least there are a few people who still learn English, lol.
:D
I can't think of a more useless metric to judge a film by, than how it performs in a image editing software. As a matter of fact it gives me a certain degree of schadenfreude knowing that people can't fix their mistakes as easily, maybe they'll learn to take a good picture
I understand you're point, which is why the photos one these videos area minimally edited, but I tend to take the Ansel Adams view on photography, which his words were something like 'use every tool at your disposal.'
Kodak ruled in the Sixties with Tri.x and Kodachrome.
Fuji people were not even born then.
Kodak still rules.
Don't forget it.
I use it with Rodinal 1 to 50 .
I used tri x when I was a wedding photographer back in the Sixties.
I used Unitol then which relates to Rodinal now.
1 to 50 means hardly any developer is used.
Just get in the darkroom you computer geeks. It's so simple.
Yeah, Kodak films are something really special. They make really superb stock.