# T-Max film vs Tri-X films



## photoman

I have recently used up my 100' roll of T-max 400. I would like to know your opinion if i should buy another roll of T-max or try some Tri X 400.

Is there a difference in grain quality?
(Ive done some work with both but havent noticed a great deal in difference)

Ive done developing of both and it seems that the Tri X has a very pronounced red stain that i couldnt get rid of, but i can get rid of the stain on the T-max.

Any suggestions would be helpful

BTW I would like to know if there is also difference between T-Max 100 and Plus X iso 125 (your opinion)

(I would prefer to stay with Kodak film)
(All film metioned is 35mm)

(P.S. Most of my work is blown up to 8x10's)


----------



## TheProf

Tmax is a T grained film so the grain when developed properly will be a bit "tighter" than Tri-X  Also Tmax tends to have a bit more inharent contrast, which also makes it not as forgiving as Tri-X.  Tri-X is very forgiving film but the tonal range and grain structure are not as nice as a T-max fim.  Tri-X tend to be a bit flat. So if you do use it I would recomend you over develope a bit.


----------



## havoc

I have used both and for "regular" shooting i will always trust Tmax over Tri-ax. Tmax is a superior film in my opinion, much finer grain and a better tonal scale. If i am pushing the film though i will use Tri-ax, it works well for it and is suited well for 3200 ISO push and higher. Obviously when  you push film you will expect more grain so this doesn't bother me. And when pushing the contrast gets bumped up as well. 
Basically, Tmax for everything but the push....


----------



## photoman

Is the tri-x better for the push because of the greater base fog?

Thanks for the responses

Has anyone done alot of pushing of T-max 400 and TX 400 to 3200?

How were your results?

I havent yet found a applical situaiton that would call for such a push

Any info would be helpful


----------



## havoc

I am not sure which is better, but both films will work well up to 3200 ISO.

The reasons way you might wanna push that far is for extreme low light, or darker sporting events where you want to stop motion.  Those are the situations i use it for. I am sure others have pushed for other reasons as well. 

The look of the pictures after pushing will show a signifigant increase in contrast, and you will probably lose some of your weaker highlights. (due to the increased time in the developer.)


----------



## TheProf

Its been my experience that TriX pushes better due to the long tonal range and that it is "forgiving" film.  I have also been told that Kodak VP is excelent for pushing.


----------



## photoman

Ive tried the push of the Tri-X film and was pleased with the reslults. The grain was defantly apperent but much better looking than the T-Max pushed to the same speed. 

Now i know there's a lot of people saying that T-Max has a red dye in it that is hard to get out. But i've noticed that i can get almost all of the red out of the T-Max but i can't seem to get rid of the Tri-X red stain. Is there anything i could try to help with the red stain.

I normaly use D-76 1:1, then stop, and fix with kodak rapid fixer about 4 mins, and then use hypo clear for 2:00 minutes and wash for Five minutes changing the water very frequently, and then use photoflo on the film to dry.

Is their any hope for me or am i permently stuck with the red stain on the Tri-X.


----------



## TheProf

Do you mean  the Purple stain?  If you pre wet it will remove the initial blue/purple layer  and I would wash for longer I usually do 10 - 15   I think you will always have a slight purple cast to the film though.


----------



## Walt

Since going back to b&w I have been using Agfa APX. How does it compare with the Kodak films?


----------



## photoman

Thanks im going to try prewetting my film and see what comes out .

I've only had experience with kodak film and can't compair it to Agfa APX. 
Sorry


Thanks again


----------



## havoc

I've heard rumors though i have no proof to back it up that T-Max is supposed to have a slight purple tint to it, and that it helps to correct some contrast issues they are having when they developed the film.


----------



## ksmattfish

The main diff between tabular grain films ("T"-max for tabular), and more traditional emulsions (hard to get more traditional than Tri-X) is the shape of the grain crystal.  Most films have a round or roundish polygonal shaped grain, while T-grain films (Kodak T-max and Ilford Delta films) have a grain that's tabular, or coffin shaped.  Visually this results in a grain pattern that seems finer than it really is, but in some instances this can result in a perceived loss of sharpness.

If you are having issues with Kodak's various purple and red dyes, try Ilford films.  While not exactly the same, their films are designed to compete with the Kodak varieties, and are similar:
Kodak Tmax films compare to Ilford Delta films
Tri-x compares to HP5+
Pan-x compares to FP4+

Personally I love the HP5+.


----------



## fotoadam

Havoc said:
			
		

> I have used both and for "regular" shooting i will always trust Tmax over Tri-ax. Tmax is a superior film in my opinion, much finer grain and a better tonal scale. If i am pushing the film though i will use Tri-ax, it works well for it and is suited well for 3200 ISO push and higher. Obviously when  you push film you will expect more grain so this doesn't bother me. And when pushing the contrast gets bumped up as well.
> Basically, Tmax for everything but the push....



what he said..  i use tmax400.  i use to use ilford 125 but its garbage.!

adam


----------



## ksmattfish

fotoadam said:
			
		

> Havoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tmax is a superior film in my opinion, much finer grain and a better tonal scale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what he said..  i use tmax400.  i use to use ilford 125 but its garbage.!
> 
> adam
Click to expand...


Film choice is sort of like food choice; some folks love what other folks hate.  You're going to have to make a choice and stick with it long enough to determine how the film reacts to different situations, and if it suits your shooting/development style.

Personally, I'll shoot on almost anything to avoid using Tmax 400.  I shot it for 4 years (because that's what my photog instructor suggested), and finally decided that it just doesn't work as well for me as Ilford HP5, or even Tmax 100 pushed to 400.  But that's just me.  Choose a film, buy a 100' bulk roll, and shoot and develop 20 rolls before you try a new film.

And by the way, Ilford FP4 rocks!  I use it (repackaged as Arista brand) for almost all my 4x5 shooting.


----------



## photoman

Thanks for the info ive gotten the 100' roll of Tri-X and and going to try and see what it is like. I've tried the prewetting of the film before developing and noticed a vast improvement in the purple/red stain on the tri-x and the t-max. Now there is only a slight tint to the film, so im happy with the results and can live with a little red.

Thanks for all your advice and suggestions


----------



## ksmattfish

photoman said:
			
		

> I've tried the prewetting of the film before developing and noticed a vast improvement in the purple/red stain on the tri-x and the t-max.



Always prewet, it helps avoid air bells and helps keep development even.


----------



## Solarize

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> And by the way, Ilford FP4 rocks!



I agree, the tones are brilliant. I've just tried my second role of it and I'll be buying some more soon.


----------



## windycitylover

I'll tell you the major difference, and here it is:
Tri-X is REALLY rated at 320, while T-Max is rated at 400. Tri-X's development times are adjusted (like if you were pushing it) in the listings (in the packaging) for it to be used as a 400 ASA film.


----------



## ksmattfish

windycitylover said:
			
		

> I'll tell you the major difference, and here it is:
> Tri-X is REALLY rated at 320, while T-Max is rated at 400. Tri-X's development times are adjusted (like if you were pushing it) in the listings (in the packaging) for it to be used as a 400 ASA film.



T-max comes in ISO 100, 400, and 3200p (which is probably closer to 800 or 1000).  The major difference really is that T-max films use a tabular grain structure, and Tri-X uses a more traditional, round grain structure.  The tabular grain visually appears smaller, although this can look soft in the highlights sometimes.

Kodak sells Tri-X professional rated at 320, and Tri-X consumer rated at 400.  Is there any difference?  I don't use either enough to spot the diff.  

I think that if most folks took the time to actually do their own film tests they'd find that they should be shooting both Tri-X and T-max 400 at a slower speed than 400.  320 is a 1/3 stop increase in exposure compared to 400.


----------



## windycitylover

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> windycitylover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you the major difference, and here it is:
> Tri-X is REALLY rated at 320, while T-Max is rated at 400. Tri-X's development times are adjusted (like if you were pushing it) in the listings (in the packaging) for it to be used as a 400 ASA film.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T-max comes in ISO 100, 400, and 3200p (which is probably closer to 800 or 1000).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know that they have the others.



> Kodak sells Tri-X professional rated at 320, and Tri-X consumer rated at 400.  Is there any difference?  I don't use either enough to spot the diff.


Well, all of the film now says "professional" on it, now, as far as I'm aware. It still says "400" on it, and it will be processed as such. T-Max really is around 400. If you use Tri-X it will be slightly grainy compared to T-Max which WILL have a bit to do with the fact that it was pushed to 400.


----------



## ksmattfish

Here's Kodak's description of Tri-X from their website:

"KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320 and 400 Films are high-speed panchromatic films that are a good choice for photographing dimly lighted subjects or fast action, for photographing subjects that require good depth of field and fast shutter speeds, and for extending the distance range for flash pictures. TRI-X 400 Film (400TX) is available in120 and 135 sizes and 35 and 70 mm long rolls. You can retouch the 120-size film on the emulsion side. TRI-X 400 Film is recommended for push-processing applications.

TRI-X 320 Films (320TXP) feature excellent tone gradation and brilliant highlights. They are especially well suited to low-flare interior lighting or flash illumination. They are also useful for portraiture with low-contrast backlighting outdoors.

One TRI-X 320 Film (320TXP) is available in 120 and 220 sizes on a 3.9-mil acetate base, the other is available in sheets on a 7-mil ESTAR Thick Base. You can retouch these films on the emulsion or base side."


----------



## windycitylover

Trust me... It's really 320. Almost every photography book I've ever read has said such, as well as Kodak's latest "guide to films and filters," which basically it a crappy little guide that tells you what filters & films to use in what conditions. It says "Tri-X," and it says (320 ASA) next to it.

Also, the box from my Tri-X film says "Professional" on it, yet it says "400," but it certainly acts like it's a 320.

Anyway, they don't even market black and white film (other than the C-41 process stuff) to consumers anymore. You'd have to click on "pro/lab" on their website just to find Tri-X film.


----------



## markc

Even though it has "professional" on it, the 400 is only labeled as TX, while the 320 is labeled TXP. Not saying that it means anything. Just pointing that out.


----------



## ksmattfish

windycitylover said:
			
		

> Trust me... It's really 320.



Actually, I don't trust you or Kodak      I'd have to do my own personal film speed test.

I have a weird relationship with Tri-X.  Everytime I've used it I've had problems or made dumb mistakes.  I don't blame the film at all; I take full resposibility for my own mess ups.  But somehow it's like I've got bad mojo with Tri-X, so I guess I sort of avoid it.  HP5+ and me get along just fine though, so it's not like I miss Tri-X.

Although I have recently had my interest in Tri-X rekindled.  I've been reading that it rates ISO 1000 in Diafine 2 bath developer.


----------



## windycitylover

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> windycitylover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me... It's really 320.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't trust you or Kodak      I'd have to do my own personal film speed test.
Click to expand...

Fine with me, but I know what Kodak's own book says.


----------



## windycitylover

markc said:
			
		

> Even though it has "professional" on it, the 400 is only labeled as TX, while the 320 is labeled TXP. Not saying that it means anything. Just pointing that out.


And the 400 TX is still around 300-320.


----------



## ksmattfish

windycitylover said:
			
		

> And the 400 TX is still around 300-320.



For who?
With what developer?
With what temperature?
With what development method?
With what development time?

All of these things are variables that affect the true film speed.  Kodak's recomendation of 320 or 400 are just approximations.  If we are going to nit-pick about a film's true ISO, then individual film tests must be done, and I guarantee that different photographers using different techniques, equipment, chems, etc... will come up with different ISO.  Most will probably be in the ISO 200 to 800 range.  

For instance, if you use Diafine 2 bath developer, the recommended approximate ISO for Tri-X is 1000.  

Film speed is relative.


----------



## ksmattfish

Check out the characteristic curves of TX400 and TXP320 on this page

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...4017.jhtml?id=0.1.18.14.21.16.14&lc=en#curves

I looked at :
KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 Film / 400TX, 120-size; Large Tank, KODAK PROFESSIONAL D-76 Developer

and

KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320 Film / 320TXP, 120/220; Large Tank, KODAK PROFESSIONAL D-76 Developer 

The characteristic curves listed by Kodak are different, so what ever they say elsewhere, here in the Tri-X tech pub they are saying they are different films.


----------

