[WPRESTO]

I have not read through all the comments here, so I'll risk repeating some observations. Tri-X may hold the record for years-in-manufacture of any film*, and is generally regarded as the best-selling B&W film ever. When introduced it was really a breakthrough high-speed film, having an excellent combination of speed, tonal range, detail rendering and grain. I think that T-Max was intended as a replacement for Tri-X. It has smoother grain, better latitude, perhaps better detail rendering, but two, maybe three generations of candid image, street and nightclub, subway station and city-at-night, sports and action photographers were accustomed to the "look" of Tri-X and just would not give it up. So T-Max is technically better, but Tri-X developed in D-76 has undefinable characteristics that somehow enhance or are appropriate to some kinds of photography. Technical analysis of the two films will not explain the differences. It all depends on how you react to images made by one versus the other, your esthetic evaluation and preference.

*Originally offered in sheet film about 1940; released in 35mm and 120 rolls in 1954. Used for over 50 years in 35mm cameras, Hasselblads and Pentax 67 - - no other film, maybe no other three films together come close to the number of images taken with Tri-X.

[bobbotron]

Holy cow @tuco, that second photo is just amazing.

One big difference between 400TX and 400TMY is that one is a cubic grain and the other tabular grain.

The tabular grain of 400TMY has more latitude for highlight compression work. Just because someone doesn't get as good of results with 400TMY as 400TX does not mean it is not as good. I shoot 400TMY at EI50,100, 400 and EI800. At EI 50 and EI100, I capture more dynamic range than anyone shooting 400TX or 400TMY at box speed and normal development in general, FYI.

400TMY @ EI 800



400TMY @ EI 400



400TMY @ EI 100



400TMY @ EI 50

[tuco]

Tuco, not quite right.

What's not quite right? I said one film is tabular grain and the other cubic. And I said I can compress highlights (N-1, N-2, etc developing) much more with tabular gain ( N-X up to 3 stops of over exposure and under development) than I have so far with cubic grain films. Of course I have not tried them all. The process is highly developer dependent too.

[gaweidert]

What's not quite right? I said one film is tabular grain and the other cubic. And I said I can compress highlights (N-1, N-2, etc developing) much more with tabular gain ( N-X up to 3 stops of over exposure and under development) than I have so far with cubic grain films. Of course I have not tried them all. The process is highly developer dependent too.

Silver halide grains tend to be triangular in shape not cubical. In T-Max films Kodak developed a way to make the crystals lie flat exposing more surface area to the light. (It takes three photons striking a crystal to render the crystal developable). This made them more efficient which resulted in lower grain and fewer crystals needed to get the same results. In films like Tri-X and Plus-X crystal orientation is more random and less efficient.

X-ray films were very thick and loaded with silver. In the early 1980's 20% of the weight of a sheet of X-ray film was silver. When Kodak used the T film technology to make x-ray films it not only greatly reduced the amount of silver needed it also significantly reduced the exposure levels needed making x-rays safer for the patient.

[tuco]

Silver halide grains tend to be triangular in shape not cubical. In T-Max films Kodak developed a way to make the crystals lie flat exposing more surface area to the light..

Yes, I remember when the original tabular grains of the T-MAX films were first introduced and Kodak showed a picture of the triangular grain structure. And there was much talk among sheet film shooters of the differences ( which many did not like in the new films).

[gaweidert]

Yes, I remember when the original tabular grains of the T-MAX films were first introduced and Kodak showed a picture of the triangular grain structure. And there was much talk among sheet film shooters of the differences ( which many did not like in the new films).

At the time these films were developed, silver was hitting $50 US an ounce and Kodak was the largest commercial consumer of silver on the planet. The savings more than justified the cost of development. It does make images look a bit different, That is why Plus-X and Tri-X B&W films were retained. Tri-X especially is a classic Kodak film with a large following.

[pathdoc]

Thanks everyone for all your help.

By all means let's go on having the discussion, because the stuff coming out here is fascinating; but given all the above, I now feel I can confidently buy either T-Max or Tri-X in bulk as available when my current supply is nearing exhaustion.

[Digitalis]

That is why Plus-X and Tri-X B&W films were retained. Tri-X especially is a classic Kodak film with a large following.

The other appeal of Tri-X is that it works with pretty much any developer on the planet. T-max is a bit temperamental and requires more precision in processing* and the thicker film base (4.7mil) on 120 format made it hard on camera winding mechanisms** - I have had MF back film advance gears fail on me because of the added tension caused by the thicker film base. But the upshot of the thicker base is that it is easier to wind onto tank reels and sits flatter in negative carriers.

* Don't treat it like pasta. But when done properly the results are worth the extra effort.
**it used to be 5.1mil but that really messed up cameras especially ones with automatic winders.

[gaweidert]

The other appeal of Tri-X is that it works with pretty much any developer on the planet. .

That is the beauty of Tri-X. Different developers allowed you to have some control over contrast etc. It was easy to push and pull process too. To me that is the great things about black and white film and paper. You can work magic with it in the darkroom.

Have you ever heard of pre exposing film? In the olden days when the press photographer carried around a 4x5 Speed Graphic some of them would pre flash their film. Not enough to cause fog, It seemed to increase the apparent speed a bit. Theoretically it works but i never tried it. It takes something like 3 photons of light striking a silver halide crystal to make it developable. If you can strike it with one or two photons you are closer to the threshold. Some of the old timers swore by it.

T-Max film may be technically better, but it is not better from an artistic point of view. As you stated no where near as much flexibility in the darkroom where the magic really happens.

[DantaxD-SK]

Newspaper days eh?
685763200008_0014 | Daniel Skorupka | Flickr

[Digitalis]

Have you ever heard of pre exposing film?

I have done it a few times with an ND grad on the lens, a trick that can be used to extend DR*. I'm not so sure if it improves sensitivity - I never shoot at box speeds**, with larger formats I tend to develop by inspection so If there is any improvement in sensitivity I would have noticed.

To be honest I never warmed to tri-X, its response curve and tonal characteristics required endless tweaking in the darkroom to get things to look "right" while films like Neopan, and T-max pretty much nail it.




*lowering contrast in the shadows allows you to pull the mid-tones out more, I find a bit of shadow tonal compression is more permissible than highlight compression...but that ultimately depends upon the image itself.

** on 8X10 and 4X5 I shoot Tech Pan at ISO 12, T-Max 100 ISO 50. I prefer to have denser negatives as the Platinum printing process I work with produces better results with them. I use a staining pyro based developer to add density to thin areas on the negatives. I also use Pyro for standard development as the stain which is always proportional to silver density from pyro functions as a continuous variable color mask that reduces printing contrast, particularly in the high tonal values: this effect is advantageous with variable contrast papers. With pyro negatives I have headroom to mess with the shadows and midtones without blocking tonal information in the highlights.

[bobbotron]

I just about unsubscribed from this post, but glad I stuck around for this meaty technical discussion. :^D

[tuco]

I, on the other hand, found "Tri-X" to be just as easy and cooperative and any other film I've used. Tri-X historically has come in two flavors. You just can't say Tri-X and expect everyone to be on the same page. I use to shoot a lot of 320TXP before it was discontinued in 120 roll film. It did okay for me.

Astoria Column, 6x7 45/4, O2 Orange filter, 320TXP, PMK Pyro

[lplade]

I just got through a semester shooting a pile of both films. Here's my take:

(I'm assuming you're talking ASA 400 versions, otherwise it's apples and oranges.)

TMax 400 is probably the "nicer" film from a technical perspective. It captures a lot of smooth nuance in gradation and detail. It must have seemed amazing in the pre-digital days.

Here's the thing though: The results look very similar to what I can do if I shoot with my dSLR in monochrome.

Tri-X 400, on the other has, has that quintessential "film" look about it. A little more contrast-y and grainy. You can try to simulate this look digitally, but it's never the same as the real thing.

So if I'm shooting film, I like classic Tri-X. Purely subjective.

They are both great films though. Shoot and bunch and see if you like it.

[cwkphoto]

One big difference between 400TX and 400TMY is that one is a cubic grain and the other tabular grain.

The tabular grain of 400TMY has more latitude for highlight compression work. Just because someone doesn't get as good of results with 400TMY as 400TX does not mean it is not as good. I shoot 400TMY at EI50,100, 400 and EI800. At EI 50 and EI100, I capture more dynamic range than anyone shooting 400TX or 400TMY at box speed and normal development in general, FYI.

400TMY @ EI 800



400TMY @ EI 400



400TMY @ EI 100



400TMY @ EI 50

I would be interested in hearing more about your development process. Which developer, times, agitation method. The photos you posted look amazing! I'm currently using DD-X almost all my films.