Keith (M) Posted November 23, 2017 Share #1 Posted November 23, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) A 2014 interview with Anton Corbijn, Don McCullin & Sebastiao Selgado. 9 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 Hi Keith (M), Take a look here The Tri-X Factor - From The Economist's Archives. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
EoinC Posted December 3, 2017 Share #2 Posted December 3, 2017 Thank you, Keith. "Grain is life"... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 3, 2017 Share #3 Posted December 3, 2017 (edited) 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted December 5, 2017 Share #4 Posted December 5, 2017 Excellent article. Thanks, Keith. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin B Posted December 8, 2017 Share #5 Posted December 8, 2017 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted December 8, 2017 Share #6 Posted December 8, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentShutter Posted December 8, 2017 Share #7 Posted December 8, 2017 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.