john_r_smith Posted November 13, 2006 Share #1 Posted November 13, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) It's been a long time, but - a couple of weeks ago I loaded up with Kodak Tri-X (the 320 ASA stuff), just to give it a go. I've been shooting Ilford recently - HP5, FP4, and Delta 100 and 400. Got the Tri-X shots back and started printing them, and was pleasantly surprised - this stuff is still good! There's a fair amount of grain, of course, but nice grain, and the tonal shifts in the mid-tone areas are particularly well-handled. There is a quality to these old-style B/W films which appeals to me for landscape work. Anyone out there have a view? John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 13, 2006 Posted November 13, 2006 Hi john_r_smith, Take a look here Good Old Tri-X. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pemayeux Posted November 13, 2006 Share #2 Posted November 13, 2006 I agree, Tri X does have a distinct quality in the mid tones. I started in photography shooting Tri X and Plus X, and while there is more grain than the Tmax, it seems to add a bit of romance to a properly exposed landscape. It is odd this thread has come up because yesterday I finished a roll of K-64 and made a mental note to get some TriX. The autumn flush of color is petering out here and I'd like to capture some of the same subjects in a not so sterile black & white. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin Posted November 13, 2006 Share #3 Posted November 13, 2006 the Tri-X is my favorit 400 ASA film. it's so finegrainy the I sometime think I'll only use this film, if threre wasn't the fomapan 100. Last week I developed one (in Adox A49 1+2) and when I've scanned it the first thing I thought " hey that's a fomapan 100" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted November 14, 2006 Share #4 Posted November 14, 2006 Should the digital Juggernaut ever reallly threaten to overcome film, I will completely fill my spare 'fridge with Tri-X and buy enough dry chemicals to process every roll. Nothing is like it especially in the world of pixels. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jager Posted November 15, 2006 Share #5 Posted November 15, 2006 I agree with Marc. Digital is seductive for a lot of reasons, but there's just something special about hanging up a roll of film to dry, seeing the images fixed there in the cellulite, all full of possibility. And of all the films out there, Tri-X is my favorite. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 15, 2006 Share #6 Posted November 15, 2006 Tri-X and FP4, if there were no other films available I'd still be a happy man. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_r_smith Posted November 15, 2006 Author Share #7 Posted November 15, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, I'm still printing my Tri-X shots (did another couple of prints last night) and I'm thinking I should get a few more rolls. This stuff has a MOOD to it which I can't seem to get with digital cameras, no matter how hard I try. I've got some really subtle cloud tones in the skies which are quite gorgeous. What is quite interesting (to me, anyhow) is that although the negs are scanned and then actually printed digitally on an HP inkjet, the individual qualities of different film stocks are still evident in the prints. My FP4 shots look like FP4, and Tri-X looks different. And neither look like digital images converted to B/W. John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted November 15, 2006 Share #8 Posted November 15, 2006 No T-Max? 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.