Kodak Tri-X 400 or T-Max 400?

**Spodeworld** · 09-28-2017, 05:46 AM

Hi. Just picked up a Spotmatic. Would like to do some B&W and was wondering which of the above you guys prefer and why. Thanks

08amczb · 09-28-2017, 05:54 AM

The Tri-X 400 has a more "classic film" feeling. The T-Max 400 can produce higher quality.

**Spodeworld** · 09-28-2017, 06:00 AM

Higher quality in what way?

Originally posted by 08amczb

The Tri-X 400 has a more "classic film" feeling. The T-Max 400 can produce higher quality.

08amczb · 09-28-2017, 06:07 AM - **1 Like**

T-Max has finer grain so it has higher resolution wich makes sharper images. I consider the resolution boost marginal in small prints. It needs care and accuracy at developping.

derelict · 09-28-2017, 06:18 AM

For messing around, Tri X has a lot more latitude and is more flexible. For taking photos of everything else, TMax is better.

**twilhelm** · 09-28-2017, 07:34 AM

As derelict stated, Tri X has a lot of working latitude. I keep a 100' roll and it is quite affordable. T max will give you finer grain and sharper images. I'd recommend trying both.

**Spodeworld** · 09-28-2017, 07:36 AM

Sounds like TMax has the edge if you are careful in what you do.

**gofour3** · 09-28-2017, 08:11 AM - **1 Like**

Buy a roll of each and see which you prefer, that would be my recommendation. I've used both and don't have a favourite.

Phil.

pathdoc · 09-28-2017, 08:32 AM

I have far more experience with Tmax than TriX, and I would go for Tmax again if I hadn't already bought 100ft of Kentmere 400 to play with. (Why? Because I wanted to try bulk loading and I wanted to be able to do short rolls for experiments in developing, and Tmax was horrendously expensive in that format.) Among other things, I have just worked out how to develop it in Caffenol C - and given that TriX is said to require TEN extra minutes in that soup (35 minutes in total!!!) I don't want to go there.

Jellygeist · 09-28-2017, 09:06 AM

I quite like TriX, personally. Looks classic, nice and grainy, nice contrast. TMax is too clinical for my taste, but you may like it.

murrelet · 09-28-2017, 10:02 AM

I mainly use Ilford instead of Kodak for BW. But I'll throw in my $0.02... HP5 > Delta 100 > Delta 400. I don't develop myself (yet) so I'm probably not making the most out of Delta. I imagine if I used Kodak, my preference would be similar: Tri-X > T-Max 100 > T-Max 400.

**Alex645** · 09-28-2017, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Spodeworld

Hi. Just picked up a Spotmatic. Would like to do some B&W and was wondering which of the above you guys prefer and why. Thanks

I would agree with every previous post. Here are a couple more ideas to consider:

Tri-X is much more consistent with different developers. TMax is compatible with traditional developers, but to really produces enhanced shadow detail, you need to use Kodak TMax developer: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29117-REG/Kodak_8446163_T_Max_RS_Developer.html

If you have any experience with Ilford films, the difference between Tri-X and TMax is like the difference between HP5+ and Delta 400.

A great tool to 'preview' the tonal response, contrast, dynamic range, and grain will look like can be done on Nik Collection's free Silver Efex Pro 2. If you take a jpeg and open it in this free app, on the right side there is a "Film Types" menu that include both Tri-X and TMax and it will show you a simulation of how the two films would produce different gray scale results. Note: There are a ton of developer manipulation that can alter your actual results.

Google Nik Collection

**UncleVanya** · 09-28-2017, 12:56 PM

I shot a lot of HP5 and Tri-X pushed to 3200 a long time ago. Nostalgia says Tri-X for the win over T-Max. I do agree that T-Max can seem a little more clinical but honestly shoot two rolls and develop as you plan and compare - my memory is not working off current data.

pathdoc · 09-28-2017, 02:52 PM

I shudder to think how long I would have to bake TriX in caffenol for 3200 ASA. I suspect some quite significant (semi-)stand development would be required.

**UncleVanya** · 09-28-2017, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by pathdoc

I shudder to think how long I would have to bake TriX in caffenol for 3200 ASA. I suspect some quite significant (semi-)stand development would be required.

Never used caffenol back then. Dektol is what I recall using.

09-28-2017, 05:46 AM	#1
Spodeworld Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New Joisey Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,370	Kodak Tri-X 400 or T-Max 400? Hi. Just picked up a Spotmatic. Would like to do some B&W and was wondering which of the above you guys prefer and why. Thanks

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
TMax 400 vs. Tri-X; pros and cons of switching	pathdoc	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	30	07-14-2017 08:35 AM
Black & White Old Kodak Tri X Portrait	crabby	Post Your Photos!	2	07-30-2014 05:41 AM
Kodak T-Max P3200 Film	photographyguy74	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	16	12-23-2013 04:57 PM
Blast from the past: Kodak Tri-Chem Pack	ChrisPlatt	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	15	04-30-2012 05:13 AM

09-28-2017, 05:54 AM	#2
08amczb Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 796	The Tri-X 400 has a more "classic film" feeling. The T-Max 400 can produce higher quality.

09-28-2017, 06:00 AM	#3
Spodeworld Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New Joisey Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,370 Original Poster	Higher quality in what way? Originally posted by 08amczb The Tri-X 400 has a more "classic film" feeling. The T-Max 400 can produce higher quality.

09-28-2017, 06:07 AM - 1 Like	#4
08amczb Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 796	T-Max has finer grain so it has higher resolution wich makes sharper images. I consider the resolution boost marginal in small prints. It needs care and accuracy at developping.

09-28-2017, 06:18 AM	#5
derelict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: NoVa Posts: 525	For messing around, Tri X has a lot more latitude and is more flexible. For taking photos of everything else, TMax is better.

09-28-2017, 07:34 AM	#6
twilhelm Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,369	As derelict stated, Tri X has a lot of working latitude. I keep a 100' roll and it is quite affordable. T max will give you finer grain and sharper images. I'd recommend trying both.

09-28-2017, 07:36 AM	#7
Spodeworld Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New Joisey Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,370 Original Poster	Sounds like TMax has the edge if you are careful in what you do.

09-28-2017, 08:11 AM - 1 Like	#8
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,091	Buy a roll of each and see which you prefer, that would be my recommendation. I've used both and don't have a favourite. Phil.

09-28-2017, 08:32 AM	#9
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	I have far more experience with Tmax than TriX, and I would go for Tmax again if I hadn't already bought 100ft of Kentmere 400 to play with. (Why? Because I wanted to try bulk loading and I wanted to be able to do short rolls for experiments in developing, and Tmax was horrendously expensive in that format.) Among other things, I have just worked out how to develop it in Caffenol C - and given that TriX is said to require TEN extra minutes in that soup (35 minutes in total!!!) I don't want to go there.

09-28-2017, 09:06 AM	#10
Jellygeist Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: Brandon, MB Photos: Albums Posts: 334	I quite like TriX, personally. Looks classic, nice and grainy, nice contrast. TMax is too clinical for my taste, but you may like it.

09-28-2017, 10:02 AM	#11
murrelet Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Portland, OR, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 506	I mainly use Ilford instead of Kodak for BW. But I'll throw in my $0.02... HP5 > Delta 100 > Delta 400. I don't develop myself (yet) so I'm probably not making the most out of Delta. I imagine if I used Kodak, my preference would be similar: Tri-X > T-Max 100 > T-Max 400.

09-28-2017, 10:24 AM	#12
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,526	Originally posted by Spodeworld Hi. Just picked up a Spotmatic. Would like to do some B&W and was wondering which of the above you guys prefer and why. Thanks I would agree with every previous post. Here are a couple more ideas to consider: Tri-X is much more consistent with different developers. TMax is compatible with traditional developers, but to really produces enhanced shadow detail, you need to use Kodak TMax developer: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29117-REG/Kodak_8446163_T_Max_RS_Developer.html If you have any experience with Ilford films, the difference between Tri-X and TMax is like the difference between HP5+ and Delta 400. A great tool to 'preview' the tonal response, contrast, dynamic range, and grain will look like can be done on Nik Collection's free Silver Efex Pro 2. If you take a jpeg and open it in this free app, on the right side there is a "Film Types" menu that include both Tri-X and TMax and it will show you a simulation of how the two films would produce different gray scale results. Note: There are a ton of developer manipulation that can alter your actual results. Google Nik Collection

09-28-2017, 12:56 PM	#13
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,404	I shot a lot of HP5 and Tri-X pushed to 3200 a long time ago. Nostalgia says Tri-X for the win over T-Max. I do agree that T-Max can seem a little more clinical but honestly shoot two rolls and develop as you plan and compare - my memory is not working off current data.

09-28-2017, 02:52 PM	#14
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	I shudder to think how long I would have to bake TriX in caffenol for 3200 ASA. I suspect some quite significant (semi-)stand development would be required.

09-28-2017, 03:05 PM	#15
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,404	Originally posted by pathdoc I shudder to think how long I would have to bake TriX in caffenol for 3200 ASA. I suspect some quite significant (semi-)stand development would be required. Never used caffenol back then. Dektol is what I recall using.