Board index ‹ Equipment ‹ Film Cameras ‹ T Max v. Tri X?
tomfrizelle wrote:The big difference is in the technology used to create them. Tri-X is an old technology film that has round grains. T-Max is a tabular grain or t-grain film. It uses flat grains which allows more surface area to be exposed to the light. Consequently, because the grains are flat, they are more efficient at gathering light, therefore they are able to make a film less grainy while upping the ISO. If you compare grain structure between Tri-X and T-Max 400, the T-Max film will be far less grainy. The look of the two films is completely different though. Many people have complained that there's too much highlight contrast with T-Max. Newer papers may compensate for this. I haven't printed in the darkroom in a while, so I don't know for sure. Also, if you're hand developing, make sure to properly fix the T-Max. If you don't, you'll see a pronounced magenta cast to the film base. This will increase your contrast on VC papers. If you find a magenta cast on your negs when they're dry, you can refix them without harming anything.
jdepould wrote:I've shot 8 rolls of T Max so far since I started taking this photography class at school, and I just bought a couple rolls of Tri X because they were out of T Max at the store. My question is, what is the difference? I checked Kodak's website when I went to buy film for the first time, and the descriptions on both of them were pretty vague. Would anyone like to explain the difference to me as far as real world usage and such? Thx.
jdepould wrote:tomfrizelle wrote:The big difference is in the technology used to create them. Tri-X is an old technology film that has round grains. T-Max is a tabular grain or t-grain film. It uses flat grains which allows more surface area to be exposed to the light. Consequently, because the grains are flat, they are more efficient at gathering light, therefore they are able to make a film less grainy while upping the ISO. If you compare grain structure between Tri-X and T-Max 400, the T-Max film will be far less grainy. The look of the two films is completely different though. Many people have complained that there's too much highlight contrast with T-Max. Newer papers may compensate for this. I haven't printed in the darkroom in a while, so I don't know for sure.
Magenta still increases the contrast. that part hasn't changed. Make abosolutely certain that you do not over/under aggitate the film when you are processing the film. This will also run the contrast up and down.Also, if you're hand developing, make sure to properly fix the T-Max. If you don't, you'll see a pronounced magenta cast to the film base. This will increase your contrast on VC papers. If you find a magenta cast on your negs when they're dry, you can refix them without harming anything.
So far I haven't had any funky color tints on my negs, and I've developed 8 rolls of T-Max.
Are you doing the pre-wet cycle with the t-max films? A magenta cast on T-max films, even after fixing for long periods is common. when it happens, don't panic.We're using a 12 minute fix time.
What? OMG! Ok. The RULE is "twice the clearing time." Pour the fix in, aggitate for a two minute cylce. Visually inspect the film in room light. If the film edges are not transparent (clear film base), put it back in the fix for another minute, repeating until the film clears. then for that total period again. (twice the clearing) if the film takes ten or twelve minutes to clear, well, you are wasting time.I'm still messing with development times, we're using D-76, and the instructor is having us process at 10 or 11 mins, while Kodak calls for a shorter development time. We're just talking about normal processing, not push. I'm planning on varying the developer times a bit over the next few rolls just to see what differences I get.
ok. processing times depend on aggitation, chemical concentration, and chemical temperature. 68F is the standard.
if you are going to make changes, you need to document it. ideally, you would read the developer going in and coming out. standard labratory proceedure. This all sounds like somebody is messing with chemistry conservation. longer developement and fixing times are possible when you reduce the concentrations.P.S. Thanks, that was exactly the sort of answer I was looking for!
nigelgray wrote:Actually when I heard a 12 minute fix time I thought that was pretty long too. You can over fix film, and 12 minutes is getting pretty close to over fixing in my opinion, unless the fixer is really old. It actually doesn't matter if you under fix, if you do you can always go back and re-fix, if you haven't already dried the film.
If the fixer is freshly mixed you should only need a 5min fix time. Check for clearing after one-two minutes and if it is cleared fix for that amount of time again.
It's better to under fix then over fix. You can always re-fix, you can't un-fix.
Just my $.02.
Good luck.
P.s. It's good to ask about the differences in film, but the best way to learn is to just shoot an see for yourself. I spent a couple months trying to re-search different colour films and I couldn't find any hardcore comparisons. I deceided to just buy a couple rolls of every colour film I wanted to get info on and shot them. I'm found the fuji colour I like the best from trial and error. I still need to go through all of kodak's slide film.
madsox wrote:As someone who grew up on Tri-X and PlusX (oh, and the beauty of old Pan-X - ahh, I loved that in my old TLR), then learned to like the TMaxes as well, my hazy memories follow. I'm just getting back into shooting again, so take everything with a few grains of salt.
First - are you shooting both emulsions at an actual ASA of 400? I know Tri-X performs a lot better at 320, can't remember about TMX 400.
TMax is easier to push, and will give you the smoother grain pattern others have noted. I like the Tri-X grain, which HP-5 is pretty similar to, so I tend to use those for my medium-speed films.
If I recall correctly, Tri-X generally gives better shadow detail and is less prone to blocking the highlights than TMax, especially when the Tri-X is exposed at ASA 320. I think the TMax is more forgiving in the processing, though, so you don't need to be as precise in timing each step in the darkroom.
Try both in a range of situations, though, with some of the same subjects and conditions, to see which you like better. It's mostly going to come down to personal taste, really, although some of the decision on which film to use when depends on what you're shooting and for whom.
Photojournalism, "classic" landscapes, night shots to get that Weegee look? Tri-X, most likely. Wedding photos or formal portraits? Probably TMax.
But I'm just a guy with these opinions, they're free, and worth every penny!
Oh, and I mean "ISO" above. Sorry, geezing again.
Cheers,
Andrew
Board index ‹ Equipment ‹ Film Cameras ‹ T Max v. Tri X?
Users browsing this forum: ClaudeBot and 2 guests