David Goldfarb
(K=7611) - Comment Date 12/9/2001
|
No longer being made? I thought they just cut out certain box sizes. For instance, they no longer have 25-sheet boxes of TXP 8x10", but now have 50-sheet boxes.
In any case, I usually shoot TMX in 8x10" and process in D-76 1:1 to give it a bit more of a traditional curve.
I'd be very interested to try Delta 400 for LF, if they made it in sheets.
|
|
|
|
Enrique Vila
(K=34) - Comment Date 12/10/2001
|
I think David is rigth, Tri-X is still in production, but now in 50 sheets boxes instead of the usual 25.
I don?t think Kodak would discontinue it while it is the most popular black and white film.
|
|
|
|
Phillip Cohen
(K=10561) - Comment Date 12/10/2001
|
I will check again, I hope you guys are right. I looked on the kodak site and only saw it available in 35mm and 120. I will look again to make sure. Thanks
|
|
|
|
David Goldfarb
(K=7611) - Comment Date 12/11/2001
|
The Tri-X in 35mm and 120 is TX. The Tri-X also available in 120 and in sheet sizes is TXP (Tri-X Professional), which is a different emulsion. Maybe that's the confusion.
|
|
|
|
dr
(K=74) - Comment Date 1/26/2002
|
phil;
tri-x isnt going anywhere...! at least yet.
there are, count them, '3' types of tri-x;
TX - 35mm, 120
TXP - 120, 220
TXT - 4x5, 8x10, 11x14 & up.
they are ALL different!
regards
drwood
|
|
|
|
Scott Jones
(K=1093) - Comment Date 2/2/2002
|
Note also that TX is ISO 400. TXP and TXT are ISO 320 and often times used at EI of 160. A bit confusing Hunh?!?
Scott
|
|
|
|
Brian Bednarek
(K=1656) - Comment Date 4/5/2002
|
I am happy with Ilford HP5+ for my general use in all formats (35mm, 120 & 4x5). I usually keep it simple and develop in D-76 at 1:1 (old habits die hard). I have used Tri-X in the past but for some reason I have been an Ilford film user but Kodak chemical user for over 20 years, go figger!!!
|
|
|
|
Greg O'Conner
(K=2398) - Comment Date 1/25/2003
|
HP5 as mentioned is very similar to Tri-X.
|
|
|
|
Gary Auerbach
(K=3935) - Comment Date 3/2/2003
|
I have used tri-x 8x10 for many years. 11x14 is difficult to find. Tri-x responds well to push developing necessary for some alt process techniques. I now am using Bergger 200. It is available in 8x10 and 11x14 but does not respond strongly to push processing. I add 3 stops develpment to the process of the film. It seems it actually is 1.5 stops in change.
|
|
|
|
David Goldfarb
(K=7611) - Comment Date 3/2/2003
|
I don't think Tri-X and HP5 are similar at all, other than being nominally close to the same speed traditional B&W emulsions. Tri-X has more of an S-shaped curve with a longer toe and a bit of a shoulder, while HP5 has a flat toe and more of a straight line. This should make HP5 easier to use, but I find a bit flat for my taste. Tri-X, properly exposed, conveys a stronger sense of line and better midtone separation to my eye.
Gary, do you shoot 11x14"? I haven't tried the New Tri-X sheet film yet, but if it is as good as old Tri-X, I may try to assemble a few people together to make a special order in 11x14", if Kodak is still doing that with the new coating plant. This would probably not be for a few months, since I haven't been able to get my hands on any new Tri-X yet. Email me if you are interested, and I'll put you on my contact list.
|
|
|
|
Werner van den Oudenhoven
(K=207) - Comment Date 4/20/2003
|
I think you want a film with a classic cristal structure, and a classic tone curve. Have you ever considered trying the German "Classic Pan" 400 (see http://www.classicpan.de) Available at http://www.fotoimpex.de (http://www.jandcphotography.com for the US and Canada). They are coming very cheap.
|
|
|
|
David Goldfarb
(K=7611) - Comment Date 4/20/2003
|
I tried Classic Pan 400 (which Mirko says is the same as Fortepan 400), and found it flat. It just doesn't have the density range of Tri-X, the emulsion scratches more easily, and the base is thinner than Kodak's. It could be a good film for high contrast scenes, but not worth the trouble in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
