[pathdoc]

Currently shooting Tmax 400, but always on the lookout for bulk lots of fresh film that will keep me going for a while. Browsing Amazon ca, I saw that as well as ten-packs of Tmax 400/36, they are also selling bulk packs of Tri-X 400 and for a very similar price (and no shipping). So the obvious question arises - if I should be getting near the end of my current box of T-max and looking for more stock, what do I stand to gain or lose if through choice or circumstance I find myself pushing the button on Tri-X instead?

Comment from those who have shot both films is especially welcome - if you ditched one for the other, which got the boot/the nod and why?

[E-man]

Oh wow! Let's jump into the Wayback Machine! I haven't shot black and white film since the summer of 1991 when I left the newspaper where I had worked between college and grad school. We had both Tri-X and T-Max film in the cabinet because we bought whatever was on sale. We generally found Tri-X to be a little grainier than T-Max but it was also a little more forgiving when we push-processed it to compensate for underexposure. T-Max, on the other hand, required a bit more precision in developing but yielded noticeably sharper results, similar to the slower Plus-X film but with the ASA 400 speed of Tri-X. We also found we could get a little better results out of Tri-X by developing it in T-Max developer instead of D-76.

[UncleVanya]

Tri-X from what I read has changed over the years. In the original form Tri-x had a bolder look and more grain than T-Max. T-Max was a more slick looking less gritty rendering film. I haven't shot either since this changed but I have read that the current Tri-X is very similar to T-Max these days.

[redrockcoulee]

I shoot TMAX 400 when I need a higher speed film in 120 but for 135 I have shoot a variety because much of it was given to me. TMX is finer grain and once I stopped using TMAX developer with it I liked it even better. My friend shots nothing but TriX but he likes more grain in his images. If grain is not a big factor to you one way or the other go for the TriX and try it out for yourself. You may find that you like one better or that you will buy by price in the future.

Both are good

[Alex645]

Tri-X is definitely grainier than TMax, but has a better exposure latitude and is more forgiving in processing as well. TMax is very sharp with less apparent grain, but to really see the advantages of TMax, you should use TMax developer. Similar comparisons can be made between Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ vs. Delta 100 and 400. Delta is optimized with DD-X developer.

[pathdoc]

Tri-X is definitely grainier than TMax, but has a better exposure latitude and is more forgiving in processing as well.

All this is very important since I am shooting older cameras whose light meters may not be at their best any more (including Spotmatics with modern batteries) and developing exclusively at home (D76 and Kodak fixer mostly, but am about to give Ilford chemistry a try as I don't have to mix it from powder).

In what way is Tri-X more forgiving?

[cobbu2]

I'm primarily a TMax shooter, I have to say I appreciate the fine grain and sharpness. Every so often, I think about switching to Tri-X but I also have some TMax 100 that I use on occasion; as it turns out, the development times between TMY and TMX are identical in HC-110 dilution B up through 72 degrees, so I can process both at the same time. So as long as I have TMX lying around, I'll continue to use TMY.

Tri-X is supposedly more forgiving during processing in that it is more tolerant with time and temperature deviations during development. In actual practice, I've had little trouble, if any, with TMax.

---

Last edited by cobbu2; 12-12-2016 at 08:55 PM. Reason: Additional info

[Alex645]

In what way is Tri-X more forgiving?

Tri-X, compared to TMax, is more "forgiving" in terms of exposure latitude, but also gets better results with different developers such as D76, XTOL, DD-X, etc. Tri-X can usually be fixed in 3 minutes, whereas 4 minutes is recommended for TMax. Water pH and solution temperature extremes seem to affect Tri-X less than TMax and Iʻve found TMax can be a bit too high contrast where I lose details in the shadows and my highlights block up.

Iʻm not one to formally use the Zone System, but I do try to get a good tonal range in my negs and I find that more of a challenge with TMax (and Delta).

With that said, the OP asked for pros and cons, and I have found with precise metering or bracketing, and using Tmax developer, Tmax can outperform it's older sibling, Tri-X. Here's an excellent article from last year comparing the two: http://www.shootingfilm.net/2015/05/kodak-t-max-400-vs-kodak-tri-x-400.html

[tuco]

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

[Jonathan Mac]

I shoot T-Max more than Tri-X but that's mainly because it's cheaper and easier to find (I usually buy it as Lomography 400). However, I think I prefer Tri-X overall. It's grainier as people say, but I don't mind and I find the images have a nicer overall look to them.

There isn't ahuge difference between the two, they're both superb films. I'd recommend trying Tri-X to see what you think.

[gofour3]

I have shot a lot of both films in 120 and have had good results with each of them.

As they used to say in the Alka Seltzer commercials, "Try it you'll like it"!

Phil.

[gaweidert]

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.

Tuco, not quite right. Silver halide crystals are triangular with cut off tips. In the emulsion they are oriented every which way. Some flat to the light others on edge and all angles in between. It all has to do to the odds of having at least three photons strike the crystal so it can be developed. What Kodak did was develop a way to have all the crystals lie flat. This increases the odds of a photon striking them so you can use smaller crystals while increasing the speed of the film. .

[ChrisPlatt]

FOMA says Fomapan 200 has a hybrid grain structure, which I guess means a combination of both cubic and tabular.

Chris

[Jonathan Mac]

Tuco, not quite right. Silver halide crystals are triangular with cut off tips. In the emulsion they are oriented every which way. Some flat to the light others on edge and all angles in between. It all has to do to the odds of having at least three photons strike the crystal so it can be developed. What Kodak did was develop a way to have all the crystals lie flat. This increases the odds of a photon striking them so you can use smaller crystals while increasing the speed of the film. .

FOMA says Fomapan 200 has a hybrid grain structure, which I guess means a combination of both cubic and tabular.

Chris

If gaweidert is right (very interesting, thanks, I didn't know that was the difference) then it sounds to me like Foma tried to achieve the same process but only managed to get it half right

[ChrisPlatt]

If gaweidert is right (very interesting, thanks, I didn't know that was the difference) then it sounds to me like Foma tried to achieve the same process but only managed to get it half right

More likely they were trying to create a film with the advantages of both types.

Chris