This Black & White Film Never Fails
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ก.ค. 2024
- Talking about my all time favorite black and white film and sharing sample photos shot under various light conditions. Kodak Tri-X is the most beginner friendly film and works with many developers. It takes a lot to mess it up really.
Where else to find me:
Sign up for my newsletter, I post more film photos om my blog:
www.marinaboichuk.com/follow-...
Check my work: www.marinaboichuk.com/
IG / marinaboichuk
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
0:34 What is Tri-X 400?
0:59 How I Choose BW Film
2:23 Metering Tri-X 400
2:47 Development
3:27 Sample Photos
5:21 Darkroom Printing
I agree with you about Tri-X. I've shot with it for decades, and it's never failed me. I'm especially impressed with your results from that off-brand camera - proving once again that the photographer is more important than the camera.
Thank you!. Really such a versatile film I ever tried.
Recently I've tried Rollei Retro 400 and I think it is very similar to Tri-X 400 because of high contract. I love it and highly recommend
Thanks for the suggestion, now I will totally try it.
@@AnalogueDiariesgiven your experimental nature 😉, pretty sure you can shoot infrared with it too (R72 filter & 6 stop filter factor I think 🤔)
Nice video ! Tri-x looks great in HC-110 B as well.
Thank you! Good to know 🙏🏻
Tri-X was my first and favorite black and white film. At least, for normal things. I loved Kodak HIE (High speed Infrared Exposure) but… it’s out of production now.
That HIE sounds interesting, too bad it's out of production.
I don't disagree with you that Kodak Tri-X is a great film, but there is no such thing as the best film. I have shot film for most of my adult life, which means more than 50 years, and I am still finding new and great films. There are two conditions for a film to perform to its best, 1: is the correct and adequate exposure and the other is the choice of developer. A good example is Ilford HP5 Plus. It can be flat, grainy low resolution, yet change the developer to something like Perceptol and expose @ iso 200 and be prepared to be pleasantly surprised with superb tonality and grain as fine as an iso 100 film. The same goes for Tri-X , it can be contrasty and grainy with one developer, yet exhibit sublime tonality and fine grain with another.
Hello, thanks for your comment. Not sure if you watched the video but I shoot BW in low light scenario a lot and truly do not understand how it's possible to shoot at iso200 in such questionable conditions, when your subjects are moving too. The point I made is Tri-X works with a lot of developers still producing similar punchy look. While with HP5 you have to buy many different developers and see which one works, at the end of the day that will cost extra $$$. Tri-X is just a very safe choice especially for beginners, in my opinion.
Just got back into shooting film after several years and find Tri-X 400 in both 35mm and 120 as my favorite everyday film as used with ND filter or an Orange filter it covers pretty everything shooting situation that my come across and only going with low ISO films for special situation. As far a developers go Kodak XTOL has always been my favorite B&W film but started using the ADOX version XT-3 recently as it comes in 1 liter packages as 5 liter ones from Kodak are just too much for number of rolls of B&W film I shoot each month.
Thanks for sharing your experience, I might look into these developers once mine runs out.
Your photos look very nice. I especially liked the point and shoot concert shots and the leaves at the end. This encourages me to give film another shot, so to speak.
Thank you! Maybe this is a sign you have to try Tri-X. It really takes a lot to mess it up in my experience 😅
Another great video, thank you! Tri-X is a good classic 400 speed film. Though, I usually (when there is enough light) personally prefer the less grain of good 100 (or slower) speed films. I might shoot 400 more often if/when I get around to shooting more medium format. Of course, if one is shooting in low light faster film comes in handy.. 🙂
From what I've seen, Tri-X in medium format looks beautiful.
@@jazzclarinet2006 yep, it's great in 120 and 4x5. I particularly like the grain structure of it.
I also prefer Tri-X to HP5. The contrast and grain pattern of Tri-X is more appealing to me.
Yes, I don't know why but the grain structure of Tri-x is my favorite and I haven't seen similar film so far. It especially shows when enlarging.
hello, i found it cool to have a quick look with the darkroom results, but it would be cooler if we had : the paper used, the grade, the f stop of the enlarger lense, the time exposed etc etc...
thank you =)
Thanks! That was a very quick print just to check if my paper was any good since it was old Kodak paper expired in 60s. I used medium contrast filter (3) on Intrepid, that was set by default. F stop was set at 5.6. Generally I don't print much of BW 😅
I’ll be sacrilegious … XP2 😮😂 (used to enjoy Kodak BW400CN but they stopped making that years ago) … but for a traditional b&w, Tri-X every time - though it is probably a conditioned bias due to the photos & photographers I have always liked (pretty much the de facto photojournalism film back in the day)…
XP2 is a great film 😌
HP5 pushed two stops delivers a more punchy look, similar to Tri-X, however Tri-X is still my favourite. I don't buy much of it though as its 33% more expensive than HP5.
But the grain structure is very different. Aaaand that's what I like about Tri-X in particular 😌
I agree with you. Tri X has never failed me. Have never been a fan of HP 5.
I've seen great results with HP5. But to me that involves too much of trial and error or picking the correct developer. It also costs $$$, while with Tri-X you probably can use any developer and the results will be good.
I highly recommend trying Kodak Double-X. It has a very classic look and more contrasty compared to HP5.
Several people suggested me this one. I will definitely try it sometime.
I’ve just developed a few rolls of Tri-X for the first time and found it pretty good. However, my son shot some (cheap) Kentmere 400 and I was surprised at how similar the results were. Afterwards I shot some Acros II and wow that stuff is beautiful and absolutely my new favourite. Normally I shoot 400 speed, so I’m going to try some other 100(ish) speed films like FP4+ and Kentmere 100 and Delta 100 to see how close I can get to the amazing ultrafine grain look I got with Acros. I’ve been developing with XTol recently and it seems to give good results. My main developer before that was HC110 and that works well with HP5.
Thanks for your input. I've shot Acros in 120 once, while I liked the look of the film, I absolutely hated how curly it was and that was very hard to scan.
@@AnalogueDiaries That’s interesting, can’t say I noticed the curl. I’ve got some expired version 1 Acros I haven’t shot yet, I wonder if it is different to the new one. I think I read they moved production to the UK and Ilford film is normally fine.
@@jwbarsby I'm not sure, I've shot it in 2023 (fresh film) in 120 format, developed as normal in Kodak TMax and my film came out very curly. Not Rollei curly but curly enough to be challenging for scanning.
Yes, I've tried HP5 and it always looks flat and dull to my eyes. Tri-X 'pops' the way I want B&W to look.
I've seen some good contrasty photos with HP5, but I never had any luck with it