I learned photography shooting Tri-x when I took my first photojournalism class in High School back in 1995. We shot so much of this stock it was really the only one we would shoot from covering any event up to high speed sports at night. Pushed this to 3200 easily, it's a jack of all trades. So many memories captured by this film, I still shoot it to this day.
I do not know how many rolls of 35mm Tri-x I have shot, but it is a lot. I started using Tri-X in the mid 80s. I used them when a photog for the college paper because that was the go to stock to use. It also halftoned really well. I tried T-Max a few times and just didn't like it. I pulled my Nikon N90 off the shelf the other day and will have to run a few rolls of the new formulation T-Max and see if I can see any differences. I luckily have many of my old negatives and prints I can compare to. Funny how we used to get irritated at the grain at times and never in a million years thought anyone would be searching to include grain in their photos. It is akin to analog audio like open reel tape to digital tape or streamed digital music today. We wished for digital images and cameras at the time as well as digital music. No one is ever satisfied with the state of the art I guess. Having been using digital Nikons for the past 20 years, I do find myself missing the dark room, the smell of the chemicals and the hassle, believe it or not. Thanks for the video.
For decades I have used Tri-X rated at 200 shooting 6x9; D76 1:1 NO XTOL beautiful results; people cannot believe it is Tri-X oh I thought this supposed to be a really grainy film
Here from their engineer; FWIW I find the miss sparkle with an inner glow that Ilford does not; I find ilford flat: Dear Mr. Frank, First, I want to thank you for your years of patronage to Kodak films. It is always heartening to hear from film users and this makes all the work to put out such wonderful films that much more rewarding. I have also had some wonderful exposures made on Tri-X Panchromatic film in the 135 format. I prefer this film, above all others, when I go and shoot old monuments in cemeteries due to the film’s grainy pattern. My use, and I am sure my pictures, are only a shadow to those which you have made over your years shooting in that picturesque State of California. Your letter to the Kodak EIAmericas Help Center was forwarded to me for answering. As I am sure you know, the Kodak Tri-X 400 Panchromatic Film is manufactured by Eastman Kodak Co., but then it is sold to Kodak Alaris who handles all marketing and customer interactions. Thus, I took your note and forwarded it on to Kodak Alaris to insure not only that they were aware of your inquiry but to formulate a “co-company” answer to best meet your questions. Thus, this note is being sent on to both members of the EI Help Center and Kodak Alaris. I’ve worked at Kodak since 1985 in various roles and positions but primarily in Quality functions. For close to 18 years, I worked as a Product Quality Engineer servicing the emulsion coating processes and product release for many products within the Motion Picture Film portfolio including the black & white films such as Tri-X Pan Reversal Film. A part of that role was understanding the testing systems to measure film and control the product coating to coating to insure that the film’s remain consistent. I’ll reverse your questions and answer the question on film speed first. Kodak Tri-X Pan Film is documented in Kodak Alaris publications to be a 400 speed film. Actually, it is a little slower than 400, but there is no film which is precisely the listed speed on its box. I hope in this example, you’ll understand more about this and I’ll explain why after. Listed below is the Technical Information DlogH plot for Tri-X 400 in D-76 developer. This chart displays the characteristic curve with four different development times. I will not get into the details about the actual exposing which led to the data in this chart, but that (light, step tablet, sensitometer, densitometer) are all involved and traceable to national standards, so that we can assure that the light and what a film will “see” will be accurate to a documented LogH value. Here is how the speed is calculated. Professional & Consumer Films utilize the ASA speed rating system. ASA Speed is defined as being measured at the point 0.10 density above the D-min (or Gross Fog) of the film as developed in a developer similar to or in D-76, and that the film is properly developed. To determine whether a film is properly developed, a simple calculation is made where the LogH value of the speed point (0.1 over D-min) is determined and from that LogH, 1.3 LogH is added. At that point, the density of the curve is measured and must be 0.8 +/- 0.05 above the speed point density. In the chart, I’ve made those calculations for two of the four curves. The 8 minute development, in red, does not provide enough density between the speed point and the second point to be considered a properly developed negative. The 10 minute development line, in blue, is just a little high of that 0.8 +/- 0.05 rule, but for this exercise, I’ve opted to calculate the speed. . The ASA speed is calculated using the formula: File Speed = 0.8 / Anti log of the LogH at speed point. Working that equation out, the 10 minute speed is measured to be 349 (slightly overdeveloped based on the initial assessment of properly development). For a normally developed curve, the speed is right around 343. Kodak and Kodak Alaris, as well as other manufacturers, can not list the film speed of their films as “403”, “329”, or in this case, ‘343”, and I am confident that no film is actually measured to be “400”. Speeds are always rounded up or down to the closest major speed, and those speed designations for use were selected well before I started working here (8, 12, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 & 3200). Sure there have been some occasions where other film speeds were selected, but those have only been used in the slower speed ratings (16, 32, 64) with the exception of 1000 speed. The Tri-X film is built with enough latitude to easily compensate for the speed rating of 343, which is roughly a ¼ stop slow of a true 400 speed. Cameras do not have the ability to fraction in quarter stops, nor are they built with variable speed adjustment settings to dial that in. In another developer, where we do perform some manufacturing testing of Tri-X 400 using a motion picture developer, D-97, I measured the film’s speed to be 439. Camera films are designed to provide a long enough straight line portion of the curve to capture images very well at least 2 stops over and under their state speed rating. I hope this explains how the 400 speed was selected for the product. Your second question is around development times for Kodak Tri-X 400 that has been exposed at 200 using D-76 1:1. Using the product’s Technical Datasheet, linked below, and pulling those recommended times and speeds from the table for processing in a small tank @ 70 deg., a simple Excel table can be derived. This type of method will get you into the ball park, and for a 200 speed rating, processing would be a little more than 7 minutes and 30 seconds for the conditions I mentioned. This is using the agitation at 30 second intervals. imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/f4017_trix_320400.pdf Using the tables in the TI document, you should be able to select your precise temperature and make a similar table. As you are already adding density to the film by treating the film as a 200 speed, thus over-exposing, I would be careful not to add too much development. Most photographers tend to shoot any negative film with a little more exposure to get away from flare and potential grain issues, and I am confident that the film and prints you have created are benefiting from that same process. Some make that adjustment with shutter speed, others with F-stop and others with the film’s speed. Frederick Knauf EI Quality Manager / CTS Supervisor Industrial Films & Chemicals Division Eastman Kodak Company
Tri-X pulls really well because the high lights do not blow out. Shot at 200 or even 100 it gives creamy, almost grainless, results with classic skin tones of the great portrait photographers such as Karsh, et. al. Tri-X, despite the claims of how great it is for pushing, loses more shadow detail when pushed beyond 800 than other choices - HP or Delta come to mind for pushing. For pulling I prefer Xtol or D76 as the developer.
I’ve seen the speculation before. I’ve also seen that the film is actually 320. I think that this is a bit of subjective point. In my experience the film does perform very well when pulled a stop, however, I wouldn’t say that this leads to a conclusion that Kodak is mislabelling the film as 400. It performs much like I’d expect a 400 iso film to work, relative to other similar films like Ilford HP5+.
@@noahvonhattenaperture dundee, theres an unconfirmed but dependable rumor that Mary Ellen Mark always recommended exposing this film at 200 and developing as 400
Keep up the good work! I enjoy the video. But cheap? Really? In Australia the price has doubled in two years from $12 to $24 per roll almost to the level of Ektar and Portra. HP5+ is half the price, especially if you buy the unboxed version. You can improve mid tone tonality and control grain by pulling the film to 200 and underdeveloping slightly in HC110 and being careful with agitation. Also a very good idea is to increase the volume of the developer by about 50%. I've shot the "old version" of TriX and unfortunately the new formulation is not as good. The new formulation is more related to TMax, by reducing silver (as mentioned) adding dye sensitisation and flattening the silver halides (not as much as TMax). Flattening the silver gain results in loss of microcontrast (hence why you noted loss of mid-tone contrast). Also compared to "old" TriX the new TriX also has a thinner film base. As a result the "new" TriX is has lost much of its iconic character that made TriX so popular.
Cheap relative to other Kodak films. It’s one of the less expensive films in their range. Compared to the rest of the market it’s not really cheap, no.
Tri X is iconic but hardly the low light king. That accolade goes to HP5 plus and then to TMax 400, both of which have much more shadow detail. Tri X has excellent highlight separation.
Yep. This is true. Although I can say that for me, I never worry much about shadow detail, particularly in black and white, often opting to drive the shadows even darker and blacker. Tri-X could have better midtones, but then it wouldn't be Tri-X.
It is 100 feet not 100 meters :) I wish it was...
Yeah, I caught the error a little too late. I’m going to pin that comment.
I learned photography shooting Tri-x when I took my first photojournalism class in High School back in 1995. We shot so much of this stock it was really the only one we would shoot from covering any event up to high speed sports at night. Pushed this to 3200 easily, it's a jack of all trades. So many memories captured by this film, I still shoot it to this day.
I do not know how many rolls of 35mm Tri-x I have shot, but it is a lot. I started using Tri-X in the mid 80s. I used them when a photog for the college paper because that was the go to stock to use. It also halftoned really well. I tried T-Max a few times and just didn't like it. I pulled my Nikon N90 off the shelf the other day and will have to run a few rolls of the new formulation T-Max and see if I can see any differences. I luckily have many of my old negatives and prints I can compare to. Funny how we used to get irritated at the grain at times and never in a million years thought anyone would be searching to include grain in their photos. It is akin to analog audio like open reel tape to digital tape or streamed digital music today. We wished for digital images and cameras at the time as well as digital music. No one is ever satisfied with the state of the art I guess. Having been using digital Nikons for the past 20 years, I do find myself missing the dark room, the smell of the chemicals and the hassle, believe it or not. Thanks for the video.
Great review thank you. Most helpful. Nice cat by the way!😻💯
You're definitely one of the best film you tubers
Very good presentation. Thank you.
Great vid, can’t wait for more
There’s none better!
Tri-X in D-23 is superb ... you lose a bit of sharpness but the grain is smooth and smaller ..... LOVE Tri-X
I’ll have to try that.
Tri-X in D-76 1:1 for 11 minutes is the bomb.
How do you normally develop your Tri-X? I liked shooting it in XTOL.
Thank you. What film and how you shoot candid indoor photos of university classrooms, library, lecture halls, and laboratories?
Colour or black and white?
@@noahvonhatten Thank you so much for responding. Both actually, without a flash.
Thank you for helping g me understand Tri X 400
For decades I have used Tri-X rated at 200 shooting 6x9; D76 1:1 NO XTOL beautiful results; people cannot believe it is Tri-X oh I thought this supposed to be a really grainy film
Here from their engineer; FWIW I find the miss sparkle with an inner glow that Ilford does not; I find ilford flat:
Dear Mr. Frank,
First, I want to thank you for your years of patronage to Kodak films. It is always heartening to hear from film users and this makes all the work to put out such wonderful films that much more rewarding.
I have also had some wonderful exposures made on Tri-X Panchromatic film in the 135 format. I prefer this film, above all others, when I go and shoot old monuments in cemeteries due to the film’s grainy pattern. My use, and I am sure my pictures, are only a shadow to those which you have made over your years shooting in that picturesque State of California.
Your letter to the Kodak EIAmericas Help Center was forwarded to me for answering. As I am sure you know, the Kodak Tri-X 400 Panchromatic Film is manufactured by Eastman Kodak Co., but then it is sold to Kodak Alaris who handles all marketing and customer interactions. Thus, I took your note and forwarded it on to Kodak Alaris to insure not only that they were aware of your inquiry but to formulate a “co-company” answer to best meet your questions. Thus, this note is being sent on to both members of the EI Help Center and Kodak Alaris.
I’ve worked at Kodak since 1985 in various roles and positions but primarily in Quality functions. For close to 18 years, I worked as a Product Quality Engineer servicing the emulsion coating processes and product release for many products within the Motion Picture Film portfolio including the black & white films such as Tri-X Pan Reversal Film. A part of that role was understanding the testing systems to measure film and control the product coating to coating to insure that the film’s remain consistent.
I’ll reverse your questions and answer the question on film speed first. Kodak Tri-X Pan Film is documented in Kodak Alaris publications to be a 400 speed film. Actually, it is a little slower than 400, but there is no film which is precisely the listed speed on its box. I hope in this example, you’ll understand more about this and I’ll explain why after. Listed below is the Technical Information DlogH plot for Tri-X 400 in D-76 developer. This chart displays the characteristic curve with four different development times. I will not get into the details about the actual exposing which led to the data in this chart, but that (light, step tablet, sensitometer, densitometer) are all involved and traceable to national standards, so that we can assure that the light and what a film will “see” will be accurate to a documented LogH value.
Here is how the speed is calculated. Professional & Consumer Films utilize the ASA speed rating system. ASA Speed is defined as being measured at the point 0.10 density above the D-min (or Gross Fog) of the film as developed in a developer similar to or in D-76, and that the film is properly developed. To determine whether a film is properly developed, a simple calculation is made where the LogH value of the speed point (0.1 over D-min) is determined and from that LogH, 1.3 LogH is added. At that point, the density of the curve is measured and must be 0.8 +/- 0.05 above the speed point density. In the chart, I’ve made those calculations for two of the four curves. The 8 minute development, in red, does not provide enough density between the speed point and the second point to be considered a properly developed negative. The 10 minute development line, in blue, is just a little high of that 0.8 +/- 0.05 rule, but for this exercise, I’ve opted to calculate the speed. . The ASA speed is calculated using the formula: File Speed = 0.8 / Anti log of the LogH at speed point. Working that equation out, the 10 minute speed is measured to be 349 (slightly overdeveloped based on the initial assessment of properly development). For a normally developed curve, the speed is right around 343.
Kodak and Kodak Alaris, as well as other manufacturers, can not list the film speed of their films as “403”, “329”, or in this case, ‘343”, and I am confident that no film is actually measured to be “400”. Speeds are always rounded up or down to the closest major speed, and those speed designations for use were selected well before I started working here (8, 12, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 & 3200). Sure there have been some occasions where other film speeds were selected, but those have only been used in the slower speed ratings (16, 32, 64) with the exception of 1000 speed. The Tri-X film is built with enough latitude to easily compensate for the speed rating of 343, which is roughly a ¼ stop slow of a true 400 speed. Cameras do not have the ability to fraction in quarter stops, nor are they built with variable speed adjustment settings to dial that in. In another developer, where we do perform some manufacturing testing of Tri-X 400 using a motion picture developer, D-97, I measured the film’s speed to be 439. Camera films are designed to provide a long enough straight line portion of the curve to capture images very well at least 2 stops over and under their state speed rating. I hope this explains how the 400 speed was selected for the product.
Your second question is around development times for Kodak Tri-X 400 that has been exposed at 200 using D-76 1:1. Using the product’s Technical Datasheet, linked below, and pulling those recommended times and speeds from the table for processing in a small tank @ 70 deg., a simple Excel table can be derived. This type of method will get you into the ball park, and for a 200 speed rating, processing would be a little more than 7 minutes and 30 seconds for the conditions I mentioned. This is using the agitation at 30 second intervals.
imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/f4017_trix_320400.pdf
Using the tables in the TI document, you should be able to select your precise temperature and make a similar table.
As you are already adding density to the film by treating the film as a 200 speed, thus over-exposing, I would be careful not to add too much development.
Most photographers tend to shoot any negative film with a little more exposure to get away from flare and potential grain issues, and I am confident that the film and prints you have created are benefiting from that same process. Some make that adjustment with shutter speed, others with F-stop and others with the film’s speed.
Frederick Knauf
EI Quality Manager / CTS Supervisor
Industrial Films & Chemicals Division
Eastman Kodak Company
I was just about to ask if it pulled well. I am considering trying it in an old DuaFlex non adjustable camera which is designed for slower films.
@@mkshffr4936 I believe if you follow the guidance provided to me by Kodak you will be pleased.
Tri-X pulls really well because the high lights do not blow out. Shot at 200 or even 100 it gives creamy, almost grainless, results with classic skin tones of the great portrait photographers such as Karsh, et. al. Tri-X, despite the claims of how great it is for pushing, loses more shadow detail when pushed beyond 800 than other choices - HP or Delta come to mind for pushing. For pulling I prefer Xtol or D76 as the developer.
Well, I mean, in 6 by 9 …. !
What are your go to lens?? Just curious
The Nikkor-O 35mm f2, and Nikkor-Q 200mm f4 are on my camera a lot.
Some Pro's have tested this film and found that the actual speed is 160 asa, your thoughts please.
I’ve seen the speculation before. I’ve also seen that the film is actually 320. I think that this is a bit of subjective point. In my experience the film does perform very well when pulled a stop, however, I wouldn’t say that this leads to a conclusion that Kodak is mislabelling the film as 400. It performs much like I’d expect a 400 iso film to work, relative to other similar films like Ilford HP5+.
@@noahvonhattenaperture dundee, theres an unconfirmed but dependable rumor that Mary Ellen Mark always recommended exposing this film at 200 and developing as 400
Keep up the good work! I enjoy the video. But cheap? Really? In Australia the price has doubled in two years from $12 to $24 per roll almost to the level of Ektar and Portra. HP5+ is half the price, especially if you buy the unboxed version. You can improve mid tone tonality and control grain by pulling the film to 200 and underdeveloping slightly in HC110 and being careful with agitation. Also a very good idea is to increase the volume of the developer by about 50%.
I've shot the "old version" of TriX and unfortunately the new formulation is not as good. The new formulation is more related to TMax, by reducing silver (as mentioned) adding dye sensitisation and flattening the silver halides (not as much as TMax). Flattening the silver gain results in loss of microcontrast (hence why you noted loss of mid-tone contrast).
Also compared to "old" TriX the new TriX also has a thinner film base.
As a result the "new" TriX is has lost much of its iconic character that made TriX so popular.
Cheap relative to other Kodak films. It’s one of the less expensive films in their range. Compared to the rest of the market it’s not really cheap, no.
@@noahvonhatten not down here ..like I said it’s same price as Tmax100 or 400 and about $4 less then Ektar .. which of course is a color film..
Where' australia?
The film wasn’t re formulated in 1960, they just changed the ASA standard.
Yup, you’re right. Sorry about that.
great shots. Nikon forever.
Thanks!
@@noahvonhattengreat shots. Leica MP forever !
Trihard 7
Tri X is iconic but hardly the low light king. That accolade goes to HP5 plus and then to TMax 400, both of which have much more shadow detail. Tri X has excellent highlight separation.
Yep. This is true. Although I can say that for me, I never worry much about shadow detail, particularly in black and white, often opting to drive the shadows even darker and blacker. Tri-X could have better midtones, but then it wouldn't be Tri-X.
@@MarsViolet Try it in HC110.
Some proofreading might be in order as the very first word that appears on-screen has a typo. It's Kodachrome not Kodakchrome.
I fuk with tri-x. Great video too I guess
Tri-X 400 emultions has change at least 3 times over time, so it cant be a "Classic" it´s far from been anything like it used to "look" in the 70´s
Nice video, but too much with the moving hands for me I got a bit dizzy.
Keep your hands still. Too distracting.
What's wrong with you?
Jesus christ I hope you'll never come in Italy then
Pure BS! Tri-x no longer exits! TX 400 acrap film, that curls once dried! Not reccomended. Use Ilford HP5+!