Tri x B&W film

**ChrisPlatt** · 05-20-2008, 04:03 PM

It's not Tri-X, but BW400CN is a very good film, and much more economical to have processed.
Ask around and find someone who will print it on true BW paper...

Chris

jgredline · 05-20-2008, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by ChrisPlatt

It's not Tri-X, but BW400CN is a very good film, and much more economical to have processed.
Ask around and find someone who will print it on true BW paper...

Chris

I had been using BW400CN, but after seeing the results with the tri-x film, I do not think I will go back to the BW400CN.

borno · 05-20-2008, 04:16 PM

Very nice shots Javier,
when I was lucky enough to have a darkroom all I did was black and white and used plus-x pan 120 rolls and 35mm but liked the panatomic-x the best but you usually needed a tripod as it was 32 asa I think. I liked the microdol developer or d-76. I really miss the darkroom but there is no room in our little house

(the omega 67c is packed away waiting for it's time

)

felix68 · 05-20-2008, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by jgredline

I had been using BW400CN, but after seeing the results with the tri-x film, I do not think I will go back to the BW400CN.

Javier,

Have you called around to the labs in your area? I have one in the SF Bay Area that will develop my Tri-X for $3. I then scan the negs and figure out what I want printed, bring the negs back to them and they charge $0.35 per print on real B&W paper. I learned that all of the independent photo processors in my area send their B&W to this lab and then add an upcharge.
If you do some digging, you may be able to cut out the middle man in your area too. Of course, developing your own is an experience in and of itself, it is just not for me

.

Russell

Fritz · 05-20-2008, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by jgredline

I had been using BW400CN, but after seeing the results with the tri-x film, I do not think I will go back to the BW400CN.

I shot a roll of the BW400CN earlier this week just to try it out. I think it turned out ok. But your pictures using the Tri-x are making me think this film might be worth a try as well. Nice shots!

So is the Tri-x that you used a 400 asa film?

zx-m · 05-20-2008, 07:06 PM

Yes, Tri-X is a 400-speed B&W film. Kodak Plus-X is a 125-speed B&W film. These films have much in common (grain structure, etc.), and, generally speaking, if one likes Tri-X, one should also like Plus-X.

With regard to finding a place that will print on true B&W paper: this can be rather difficult. I have yet to find one in my area. Of the 16 rolls of film in my 'fridge, about eight are either Tri-X or Plus-X. I had searched on-line for a true photo lab--i.e. completely optical from beginning to end and true B&W paper--but the one place I tried ended up producing unsatisfactory results. He used the "right stuff," but I noticed a white glare along the bottom edge of some of my shots...quite disappointing.

christinelandon · 05-20-2008, 11:53 PM

Javier, the post is a little old, but there might be some leads here on B&W labs in your area: Labs in Los Angeles - Photo.net B&W Photo - Film & Processing Forum

lithos · 05-20-2008, 11:53 PM

It's not hard devving your own black and white. I'm self-taught, and I'm happy with my results.

Douglas of Sweden's got some pretty good advice.

Unfortunately, real prints, made optically, are getting harder to find, unless you get a darkroom and do it yourself. Felix68 is lucky. I know the true black-and-white labs here, and I know of only a few, they charge a fair bit, as it's quite a labour-intensive process.

Most just scan and print digitally, which can limit dynamic range.

But still, Tri-X is my favourite film, and it's a favourite of a lot of photographers. If Kodak discontinue this stuff, there's gonna be a riot. TMAX is horrid, and Fuji and Ilford don't have anything that really matches it, though they do have some excellent BW films. There's a good reason it's been around for 54 years - the same amount of time as the Fender Stratocaster - despite the fact it's now a decidely low-tech film in a digital age.

lithos · 05-21-2008, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by jgredline

I had been using BW400CN, but after seeing the results with the tri-x film, I do not think I will go back to the BW400CN.

Ilford's chromogenic film, XP2 Super, is apparently better to pring on true black and white because it lacks the orange colour mask of BW400CN - the orange mask helping BW400CN be easier to print on standard paper.

Once you get down to devving Tri-X yourself, it gets much, much cheaper than paying for C41 developing. Costs me less than a buck to do two rolls, and I'm in Australia.

zx-m · 05-21-2008, 06:40 AM

This is interesting advice, lithos. I have heard similar advice about do-it-yourself developing, but I have yet to try it. The developing aspect does seem rather straightforward, but what then about printing? I tend to doubt that scanning and printing on home equipment could match the printing gear in a photo lab. Also, what about getting true B&W paper?--I tend to prefer the 4"x6" paper size, as it is dimensionally correct for the 35mm format.

Regards,
Glen

lithos · 05-21-2008, 06:54 AM

Dunno. I don't have a darkroom, so I haven't done much printing. It's another thing to learn, though, and I don't mind some of the digital prints most labs do nowadays.

Ilford's the easiest BW paper to find, Kodak having, sadly, shut down their BW paper business. There're others you might find, especially in the 'States, like Kentmere and Efke.

zx-m · 05-21-2008, 07:47 AM

Another problem with home printing is the lack of matte paper for color (or B&W?) prints in the 4"x6" size. Epson does not make such a paper, and neither does HP. The Canon 4"x6" matte paper seems to be considered cardstock.

What a terrible situation today for film enthusiasts:

1. no real photo labs
2. hybrid processing only (virtually no optical processing, beginning to end)
3. plasticky, made-in-China home-use printers
4. scarcity of true B&W paper
5. a general sense of hostility toward films users--i.e. the "c'mon, get with the times so I don't have to be bothered processing your antiquated film things" attitude

Number 5 is perhaps the most challenging (and dismaying) of all.

lithos · 05-21-2008, 09:36 AM

Keep in mind that the average lab today is a lowest-common denominator place, concerned mostly with getting passable prints out to people who're willing to accept that certain bad images are simply "part of the photographic experience."

There's a few good home printers around, beyond the usual dye-sub, plug-the-camera-straight-into-them ones. Epson do some nice eight-ink variety ones.

The hybrid processing is part of a bigger problem, I feel, that comes from the digital environment, and that's the Dynamic Range problem.

zx-m · 05-21-2008, 10:22 AM

I could not agree more: the problem of hybrid processing is rooted in the digital environment.

ve2vfd · 05-21-2008, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by lithos

TMAX is horrid

So I guess I am not the only one to dislike Tmax?

I remember trying it years ago and found its contrast to be a bit "muddy" for lack of a better word...

Pat

05-20-2008, 04:16 PM	#18
borno Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: md-usa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,580	Very nice shots Javier, when I was lucky enough to have a darkroom all I did was black and white and used plus-x pan 120 rolls and 35mm but liked the panatomic-x the best but you usually needed a tripod as it was 32 asa I think. I liked the microdol developer or d-76. I really miss the darkroom but there is no room in our little house (the omega 67c is packed away waiting for it's time)

05-20-2008, 04:29 PM	#19
felix68 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 281	Have You Called Around? Originally posted by jgredline I had been using BW400CN, but after seeing the results with the tri-x film, I do not think I will go back to the BW400CN. Javier, Have you called around to the labs in your area? I have one in the SF Bay Area that will develop my Tri-X for $3. I then scan the negs and figure out what I want printed, bring the negs back to them and they charge $0.35 per print on real B&W paper. I learned that all of the independent photo processors in my area send their B&W to this lab and then add an upcharge. If you do some digging, you may be able to cut out the middle man in your area too. Of course, developing your own is an experience in and of itself, it is just not for me . Russell

05-21-2008, 07:47 AM	#27
zx-m Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia Posts: 376	Another problem with home printing is the lack of matte paper for color (or B&W?) prints in the 4"x6" size. Epson does not make such a paper, and neither does HP. The Canon 4"x6" matte paper seems to be considered cardstock. What a terrible situation today for film enthusiasts: 1. no real photo labs 2. hybrid processing only (virtually no optical processing, beginning to end) 3. plasticky, made-in-China home-use printers 4. scarcity of true B&W paper 5. a general sense of hostility toward films users--i.e. the "c'mon, get with the times so I don't have to be bothered processing your antiquated film things" attitude Number 5 is perhaps the most challenging (and dismaying) of all. Last edited by zx-m; 05-21-2008 at 08:14 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Misc B&W - Scans of Tri-X	ve2vfd	Post Your Photos!	7	12-23-2009 04:32 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Film LX & MX & Glass	DaddyLuna	Sold Items	5	06-03-2009 02:09 PM
pentax p3n tri-x film	jadams360	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	9	03-13-2009 09:45 AM
Back to B&W: BW400CN or Tri-X?	troyz	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	23	08-14-2008 07:55 AM

05-20-2008, 04:03 PM	#16
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,692	It's not Tri-X, but BW400CN is a very good film, and much more economical to have processed. Ask around and find someone who will print it on true BW paper... Chris

05-20-2008, 04:10 PM	#17
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Originally posted by ChrisPlatt It's not Tri-X, but BW400CN is a very good film, and much more economical to have processed. Ask around and find someone who will print it on true BW paper... Chris I had been using BW400CN, but after seeing the results with the tri-x film, I do not think I will go back to the BW400CN.

05-20-2008, 04:39 PM	#20
Fritz Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Tillamook, OR Posts: 1,222	Originally posted by jgredline I had been using BW400CN, but after seeing the results with the tri-x film, I do not think I will go back to the BW400CN. I shot a roll of the BW400CN earlier this week just to try it out. I think it turned out ok. But your pictures using the Tri-x are making me think this film might be worth a try as well. Nice shots! So is the Tri-x that you used a 400 asa film?

05-20-2008, 07:06 PM	#21
zx-m Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia Posts: 376	Yes, Tri-X is a 400-speed B&W film. Kodak Plus-X is a 125-speed B&W film. These films have much in common (grain structure, etc.), and, generally speaking, if one likes Tri-X, one should also like Plus-X. With regard to finding a place that will print on true B&W paper: this can be rather difficult. I have yet to find one in my area. Of the 16 rolls of film in my 'fridge, about eight are either Tri-X or Plus-X. I had searched on-line for a true photo lab--i.e. completely optical from beginning to end and true B&W paper--but the one place I tried ended up producing unsatisfactory results. He used the "right stuff," but I noticed a white glare along the bottom edge of some of my shots...quite disappointing.

05-20-2008, 11:53 PM	#22
christinelandon Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Seattle, Washington, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 812	Javier, the post is a little old, but there might be some leads here on B&W labs in your area: Labs in Los Angeles - Photo.net B&W Photo - Film & Processing Forum

05-20-2008, 11:53 PM	#23
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	It's not hard devving your own black and white. I'm self-taught, and I'm happy with my results. Douglas of Sweden's got some pretty good advice. Unfortunately, real prints, made optically, are getting harder to find, unless you get a darkroom and do it yourself. Felix68 is lucky. I know the true black-and-white labs here, and I know of only a few, they charge a fair bit, as it's quite a labour-intensive process. Most just scan and print digitally, which can limit dynamic range. But still, Tri-X is my favourite film, and it's a favourite of a lot of photographers. If Kodak discontinue this stuff, there's gonna be a riot. TMAX is horrid, and Fuji and Ilford don't have anything that really matches it, though they do have some excellent BW films. There's a good reason it's been around for 54 years - the same amount of time as the Fender Stratocaster - despite the fact it's now a decidely low-tech film in a digital age.

05-21-2008, 05:37 AM	#24
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Originally posted by jgredline I had been using BW400CN, but after seeing the results with the tri-x film, I do not think I will go back to the BW400CN. Ilford's chromogenic film, XP2 Super, is apparently better to pring on true black and white because it lacks the orange colour mask of BW400CN - the orange mask helping BW400CN be easier to print on standard paper. Once you get down to devving Tri-X yourself, it gets much, much cheaper than paying for C41 developing. Costs me less than a buck to do two rolls, and I'm in Australia.

05-21-2008, 06:40 AM	#25
zx-m Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia Posts: 376	This is interesting advice, lithos. I have heard similar advice about do-it-yourself developing, but I have yet to try it. The developing aspect does seem rather straightforward, but what then about printing? I tend to doubt that scanning and printing on home equipment could match the printing gear in a photo lab. Also, what about getting true B&W paper?--I tend to prefer the 4"x6" paper size, as it is dimensionally correct for the 35mm format. Regards, Glen

05-21-2008, 06:54 AM	#26
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Dunno. I don't have a darkroom, so I haven't done much printing. It's another thing to learn, though, and I don't mind some of the digital prints most labs do nowadays. Ilford's the easiest BW paper to find, Kodak having, sadly, shut down their BW paper business. There're others you might find, especially in the 'States, like Kentmere and Efke.

05-21-2008, 09:36 AM	#28
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	Keep in mind that the average lab today is a lowest-common denominator place, concerned mostly with getting passable prints out to people who're willing to accept that certain bad images are simply "part of the photographic experience." There's a few good home printers around, beyond the usual dye-sub, plug-the-camera-straight-into-them ones. Epson do some nice eight-ink variety ones. The hybrid processing is part of a bigger problem, I feel, that comes from the digital environment, and that's the Dynamic Range problem.

05-21-2008, 10:22 AM	#29
zx-m Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia Posts: 376	I could not agree more: the problem of hybrid processing is rooted in the digital environment.

05-21-2008, 10:37 AM	#30
ve2vfd Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Montreal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,433	Originally posted by lithos TMAX is horrid So I guess I am not the only one to dislike Tmax? I remember trying it years ago and found its contrast to be a bit "muddy" for lack of a better word... Pat