The Tri-X Factor - From The Economist's Archives

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A 2014 interview with Anton Corbijn, Don McCullin & Sebastiao Selgado.

[EoinC]

Thank you, Keith. "Grain is life"...

[pico]

I am not certain when and how, but I swear 35mm Tri-X changed significantly in my term.

Earlier negatives have adequate range, but they have a grainy bite missing today. Same

developer, same technique, same enlarger, but the outcome is different. The only difference

is that Agfa Brovira graded paper is extinct.

Edited December 3, 2017 by pico

[Herr Barnack]

Excellent article.  Thanks, Keith. 

[Martin B]

Tri-X is the least favorite B&W film for me - I only use it to push it to higher ISO where it performs IMO better than at lower ISO. Too much grain for my taste otherwise. I prefer a lot more HP5+ (it is different!) for ISO 400 and even more so FP4+ at lower ISO. Tri-X is severely overrated (and overpriced for this reason) IMO. 

[01af]

Tri-X is the least favorite B&W film for me [...]. Tri-X is severely overrated ...

Overrated indeed. I also prefer Ilford HP5+, at box speed as well as for pushing. Looks nicer, scans better, handles easier.

 

I was using HP5 for decades and tried my first few rolls of Tri-X only recently. Quickly returned to good old HP5+. Of course, Tri-X isn't bad; it's not a matter of better or worse. It's a matter of taste. And I like HP5's smoother, longer scale of tones better than Tri-X's apparent pop. And then, the differences aren't that big; they're fairly subtle. I could live with Tri-X if I had to. Fortunately, I don't have to.

[SilentShutter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Opposite to me. Used the HP5+ for a long time working for a newspaper and was glad to replace it

with the more sharper and less grainy Fuji Neonan 400.

As I started my pesonal comeback with film I wanted this special look and Tri-X was all I needed for.