Exposure Latitude Question -- Tri-X v. T-grain films

[PATB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I got into black and white photography with the purchase of my MP a little over a year ago. Since then, I have shot 100+ rolls of Tri-X. I love the look and, most importantly, the fact that I can get a printable photo even when the exposure is not precise due to lack of time to meter or lack of metering skill on my part. My only complaint is the grain sometimes get a bit much, especially when scanning with my Coolscan V or enlarging onto 11x14 bw paper.

 

I have tried a few rolls of Delta 400 and the new T-MAX 400. While they do not have the "classic look" of Tri-X, they don't have much grain either. And I find them easier to scan, which is important to me for vacation shots because my family loves photobooks. So for my next vacation, I am planning on bringing either the Delta or the T-Max. My only concern is that I am not sure of their exposure latitude; I don't have much experience with them compared to Tri-X. More specifically, my question is whether the Delta and T-max require more precise metering compared to good ol' Tri-X. I am not an experienced photographer, so this is a concern to me especially when taking pictures on the run.

 

Any thoughts on this will be greatly appreciated.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Mark Antony]

On the whole T-Max requires less accuracy with metering, in fact Kodak say you don't need to change dev times if you under-expose by up to a stop.

If you like the 'grainless' look why not try XP2?

It has according to Ilford a wide latitude (i think 100-800) and shows less grain in the mid tones, you can get it processed at any high st lab as its C-41.

Saying that I like a little grain, my favourite 35mm film is Neopan 400 which is nice tonally one you nail a setting.

Mark

[PATB]

On the whole T-Max requires less accuracy with metering, in fact Kodak say you don't need to change dev times if you under-expose by up to a stop.

If you like the 'grainless' look why not try XP2?

It has according to Ilford a wide latitude (i think 100-800) and shows less grain in the mid tones, you can get it processed at any high st lab as its C-41.

Saying that I like a little grain, my favourite 35mm film is Neopan 400 which is nice tonally one you nail a setting.

Mark

 

 

Thanks Mark. I also like XP-2, except I prefer to do the developing myself. Our local minilabs, including pro-shops, butcher negatives. I think I will give T-max 400 a try for my next vacation.

[R.Morrison]

PATB:

I do not agree that T-Max requires less accuracy for metering. Quite the contrary, both Tri-X and Plus X have greater latitude. Why is this so? Because Tri-X and Plus X are old technology films with irregular grain sizes in the emulsion. This means that the small grains in the emulsion will react to light rather quickly whereas the large grains react more slowly. This means that you have the emulsion reacting at both ends of the exposure scale thereby giving greater latitude. The penalty however will be greater graininess. T-Max on the other hand has uniform grain in the emulsion. All crystals will react to light exposure at the same time thereby requireing greater metering accuracy. The bonus will be finer grain with a commensurately greater ability to enlarge.

Since you do your own developing (as do I) you might find the old technology films to be more forgiving with respect to times. If using an old technology developer such as D76 you might find T-Max getting a little contrasty if you are a little slow in getting the stop-bath to it.

Kodak has formulated a special developer for T-Max films. USE IT! While many do not like T-Max developer, I do. I find that T-Max will exhibit far less grain when used in the developer dedicated to it and minimising grain is of course the reason for using T-Max in the first place.

Frankly, if you are over or under by only one stop, Tri-X, Plus X and T-Max will produce excellent results at normal exposure times. Experiment a little. They are all good and you will find a personal favourite. Mine is Plus X (ASA 125) because, though it exhibits more grain than T-Max 400, the tonality (especially for flesh tones) is fantastic.

 

R. Morrison, M4-P, etc.

[Mark Antony]

PATB:

I do not agree that T-Max requires less accuracy for metering. Quite the contrary, both Tri-X and Plus X have greater latitude. Why is this so? Because Tri-X and Plus X are old technology films with irregular grain sizes in the emulsion.

 

R. Morrison, M4-P, etc.

 

Actually Both T-Max and Tri-X are monodisperse emulsions that have 3 layers that serve as fast, medium and slow components of a single film.

The difference between then is that the 'old tech films' use cubic crystalline forms, and T-Max use Tabular grains.

According to Kodak T-Max have a -2/+3 latitude the old emulsions have -1/+3.

I think the last polydisperse(irregular) film from Kodak was Verichrome Pan

[R.Morrison]

Mark & PTB:

 

I was repeating information gleaned from a number of articles printed in photographic magazines. As a journalist, I more than any one, should be aware that all printed word is not gospel and so I have decided to go to the horse's mouth...Kodak.

Perusing technical data publications F4016, F4017, and F4018 I have found that Kodak claim that a one-stop over or under exposure for T-MAX, TRI-X and PLUS-X requires only normal development however when the HD curves for T-MAX 400 and TRI-X are compared it can be seen that T-MAX has a much steeper curve starting earlier and finishing later thus indicating that T-MAX should have a somewhat greater latitude than TRI-X.

The characteristic curves for T-MAX 100 and PLUS-X are not quite so disparate if both were developed on D76 but when T-MAX was developed in its dedicated developer a much steeper curve resulted.

It was stated in F4016 that pebble-like grains are reshaped into tabular form thus producing greater surface area to light. I don't know if this means that the older films like TRI-X have pebble-like grains or not. Publication F-4017 makes reference to old and new versions of TRI-X.

It was instructive also to note that F-4016 (page 14) states that T-MAX has slightly less blue sensitivity than that of other Kodak panchromatic B&W films. This might account for the tone difference between T-MAX and TRI-X or PLUS-X.

Finally, why have I muddied the waters further by introducing discussion of T-MAX 100 (ASA 100) and PLUS-X (ASA 125)? Because PTB, you indicated that fine grain was desired. I would like to remind you that it is a Leica you are using and that you can shoot at very low shutter speeds indeed. I regularly shoot at 1/15 and 1/8 using PLUS-X. Consider the slower films. That said, I hope you do take some T-MAX 400 with you on your vacation because I want to be informed as to how the new emulsion T-MAX films perform as to latitude and especially tonality. Presently, I haven't been able to obtain any of the new emulsion T-MAX in the Ottawa area because the dealers still have plenty of the old stuff or have stopped stocking Kodak preferring to carry Ilford exclusively.

 

I'll look forward to hearing from you,

R. Morrison, M4-P, etc.

[ndjambrose]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting discussion. On an anecdotal level I share Mark's comments about T-Max. I've shot a considerable amount of both emulsions and have come to the same opinion. For some projects I've used a Holga (single fixed aperture and single shutter speed) and T-Max has generally given me better results than Tri-X due to its latitude.

 

But I must say the most forgiving film I've used is XP2. It's the only emulsion that's ever given me consistently printable material in varied light even when using a camera that offers only a single exposure value. Pretty impressive.

[R.Morrison]

I must say that I agree that XP2 or any chromogenic film has considerble latitude (two to three stops and still normal development can be used). There is no grain because there is no grain in the emulsion. Dye clouds are used just as with colour film. There is a limit to enlargement though because the chromogenics seem to lack sharpness. When I enlarge much past 11"x14" I get a soft look I don't like.

 

Yours,

R. Morrison, M4-P, etc.

[Mark Antony]

A list of films and their latitude, resolution and grain RMS can be found here:

California Creeks - Film Characteristics Table

Mark

[R.Morrison]

Great information source Mark. Who would have thought to find it at that site?

 

Yours,

R. Morrison, M4-P, etc.

[budrichard]

'Bracket' your exposures.

For a critical shot, i will bracket in half stop increments +- 2 stops if given the time.-Dick

[PATB]

A list of films and their latitude, resolution and grain RMS can be found here:

California Creeks - Film Characteristics Table

Mark

 

That list really drives home the latitude of the chromogenics. I really have to rethink XP2 as I need:

1) Latitude

2) Easy scan (for photo book)

3) Print on fiber paper.

 

And I have a whole brick of XP-2s still waiting to be shot! First, I am going to look for a decent lab and try to enlarge to 8x10.

 

Thanks for the info everyone.

[Mark Antony]

Pat, XP2 is a great film, especially if you are coming from or mainly use the digital domain. Mini-lab process, scanning with ICE and minimal grain with good latitude make it sound like the ideal film.

But I don't use it, I prefer the 'old tech' films like HP5, FP4 and Tri-x I'm not even a massive fan of T-grain films (although I like Delta 3200 in MF)

The reason I don't use them is tone, or the lack of it, I haven't used the new T-Max or XP2 for a few years, but I always found those harder to print-possibly it is just me/my equipment. I also feel although XP2 has great latitude if you under-expose you lose a little tonally, shadow detail isn't great it seems to block up, I like it at EI 250-320 where it gives a very smooth 'cultured' look.

Possibly I like the punk rock look of grainy Tri-x compared to the smooth symphonic classic music XP2, Kind of like the Sex Pistols vs. Beethoven (both rock in different ways)

Mark

[R.Morrison]

Mark:

A great analogy! And that is exactly why I stick to TRI-X and PLUS-X though I still would like to learn what the new T-MAX films are like tonally.

 

Yours,

R. Morrison, M4-P, etc.

[stunsworth]

I'm another who's not terribly enamoured of XP2. Very fine grain (well, no grain I guess), but I've always felt that it likes 'bite' compared to a silver based film. Lots of detail, but not very sharp if you understand what I mean.

[innerimager]

not sure I do know what you mean. ;>) but I am very biased, I'm a digital guy and my way into film is XP2 and scanning. Recent XP2 shot

[stunsworth]

I guess I'm takling about micro-contrast, accutance that sort of thing. My experience has been that fine detail looks mushy rather than sharp with XP2, a bit like the effect you get comparing a scan from a flat bed and a film scanner. The flat bed may appear to resolve a lot of detail, but the detail isn't as sharp as a film scanner.

 

I've no problem by the way if someone prefers XP2, personally I just happen to prefer scanned FP4 and Tri-X.

[boilerdoc]

Old tech films do have more 'latitude' but the new films are finer grained, and more finicky re either over or under exposure as well as development times. But, the new TMax-2 is such a superb all round film I encourage everyone to try it. Develop in Xtol. Prints very well in the wet or digital DR.

C-41 films are superb as well but harder to print in a wet DR. Ilford is the best if you print your own. XP-2 and Kodak Portra B&W both scan very well and have a huge over exposure latitude. Set your ISO at 250 for all around use.

Steve

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[christer]

That chessplayer picture will certainly keep me away from XP2

[innerimager]

how disappointing