Tri-X 400 vs T-MAX 400

[Kodachromeguy]

UPDATE:

In the 1970s, Fred Picker wrote Zone VI newsletters about the perfect negative. He was deeply into the technicalities of developers, agitation, densities, etc. You can read his newsletters if you are interested in some procedures for calibrating your negatives. He was addressing sheet film, but you can apply it to roll film as long as you recognize that your frames can't get individual development time.

If you are interested in the Zone VI Newsletters, I found them on the internet archive:
https://ia801606.us.archive.org/10/items/img_20170209_214736_1024/Zone VI Newsletters.pdf

 

[braxus]

I have used both TMAX's in the past when it was the original emulsion. I do currently have some Acros in 120 and 35mm, but nothing other then Tri-X for 400. I tend to use slow films. I have a couple places in Vancouver willing to sell some rolls of TMAX 400, so I'll do that. When I make a bigger order for film, I'll get some from Freestyle.

 

[destroya]

i did a day trip to yosemite on friday. for my handheld shots, using my fuji gsw680iii, I shot 6 rolls of tmax 400 and 3 rolls of trix. 1 of each shot at 400, the others shot at 200 as it was clear and bright. with a negative of that size, grain is not an issue for me. but there was s subtle difference in the tonality, which is in my eye, the key difference between the films. im scanning a few, just to get an idea of the results. I prefer the results from the tmax 400 shot at 200. grain is finer than my fp4 shots, very high acutance and sharpness and the tonality I love for the high sierras. the tri-x was fine and I would shoot this film all day if I didn't have lots of tmax 400. but for me, Tmax 400 is the best 400 speed emulsion that is still made (I have a soft spot for provia 400x). Its too bad that kodak prices for 4x5 are out of line compared to their 120 prices.

 

[braxus]

Ok thank you for that comment. So what is Tri-X really suited for compared to TMAX 400? I know Tri-X has that gritty look with bigger grain, but Im trying to figure out what they are both intended for. Could you say TMAX 400 is more a portrait film? Or general use film?

 

[runswithsizzers]

i did a day trip to yosemite on friday. for my handheld shots, using my fuji gsw680iii, I shot 6 rolls of tmax 400 and 3 rolls of trix. 1 of each shot at 400, the others shot at 200 as it was clear and bright. with a negative of that size, grain is not an issue for me. but there was s subtle difference in the tonality, which is in my eye, the key difference between the films. im scanning a few, just to get an idea of the results. I prefer the results from the tmax 400 shot at 200. grain is finer than my fp4 shots, very high acutance and sharpness and the tonality I love for the high sierras. the tri-x was fine and I would shoot this film all day if I didn't have lots of tmax 400. but for me, Tmax 400 is the best 400 speed emulsion that is still made (I have a soft spot for provia 400x). Its too bad that kodak prices for 4x5 are out of line compared to their 120 prices.

When you expose at EI 200 do you adjust the development time, or do you use the same time as recommended for devloping E! 400?

 

[MattKing]

Ok thank you for that comment. So what is Tri-X really suited for compared to TMAX 400? I know Tri-X has that gritty look with bigger grain, but Im trying to figure out what they are both intended for. Could you say TMAX 400 is more a portrait film? Or general use film?

With the exception of the somewhat moderate difference in grain, I don't think that the differences are differences in what the films are intended for.
The differences are differences of aesthetics.
There are also differences in spectral response and in curve shape, however the curve shape differences are subject to a fair bit of modification, through control of exposure, choice of developer and agitation.
If you had a specific shooting situation, with pre-existing lighting, you might be able to say something like "XXX" film is better for that than "YY" film, but for varied, general work, either film can be made to perform wonderfully.
For example, the old Tri-X 320 was designed for old style, in studio portraiture - usually involving old style lighting. Its curve shape was perfect for "Karsh" like portraits, or anything that was designed to look that way.
TMAX 400 and Tri-X are intended to be much more flexible, and as a result are more flexible.
If you are using 135 film, the grain advantage of TMAX 400 would decide it for me.

 

[braxus]

I shot this pic back in 2003 on a 6x7 Pentax using TMAX 400. Love the tones, as its quite beautiful in the sun. The fact the white in the shot isn't overblown, is good, and partially due to darkened exposure. Even the sky is darker. It was this shot that makes me currently want to revisit using TMAX 400. I like old school grain, but willing to ignore that in certain shots.

 

[destroya]

When you expose at EI 200 do you adjust the development time, or do you use the same time as recommended for devloping E! 400?

yeh, I adjust the times. For box speed or iso 320, I develop in pyro-m 72 degrees for 19 min. I agaitate every 2 min. for ISO 200 same developer same temp but I develop for 16 min.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Other than the speed, why would people choose Tmax 400 over Tmax 100?

 

[MattKing]

Other than the speed, why would people choose Tmax 400 over Tmax 100?

Different spectral response.
No UV blocker in the support (important for those who wish to make prints using UV based processes).
Somewhat different shape to the characteristic curve.
The higher speed means that it is usable handheld in a wider range of circumstances, and can be used with lower power flash, or more easily with more filtration.

 

[destroya]

many of the reason Matt gave. but the main ones for me are I can shoot it at 200 or 400, so that means handheld in my fuji 6x8 and 6x9 rangefinders. I get great tonality, grain finer than Fp4 and great prints from 1 film. I shoot tmax 100 at 50 as I dont like the results I get at 100. so add filter factors and you are shooting at 20 or slower, not great for handheld.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

many of the reason Matt gave. but the main ones for me are I can shoot it at 200 or 400, so that means handheld in my fuji 6x8 and 6x9 rangefinders. I get great tonality, grain finer than Fp4 and great prints from 1 film. I shoot tmax 100 at 50 as I don't like the results I get at 100. so add filter factors and you are shooting at 20 or slower, not great for handheld.

I don't shoot handheld. I shot landscapes on a tripod using Tmax 100. Here're a few.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157642492618713

SO would I get better tones with Tmax100 or 400? Other differences? I've never shot the 400 version

 

[Hatchetman]

Tri-X is the best for stage performances for me. I’ve tried everything.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Tonal distribution is very similar between TMY400 and TMX100. The faster speed film obviously has slightly larger grain, but also better edge effect or acutance. The slight difference in spectral response is a more involved topic.

 

[Cholentpot]

Other than the speed, why would people choose Tmax 400 over Tmax 100?

You can't shoot Tmax100 past 100. At least not practically, it does not tolerate under exposure very well. I'm far from an expert but that's my experience.

Speed is the major factor, I get far more wiggle room with 400. That being said I prefer Tmax 100.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You can't shoot Tmax100 past 100. At least not practically, it does not tolerate under exposure very well. I'm far from an expert but that's my experience.

Speed is the major factor, I get far more wiggle room with 400. That being said I prefer Tmax 100.

Why then do you prefer Tmax 100?

 

[Cholentpot]

Why then do you prefer Tmax 100?

Tones are smoother, I like the contrast and the blacks are nice and black. Tmax-400 is far grainier. On 120 film this is a non-issue. Also with 100 speed I have an easier time with sunny 16 as many of my cameras have no meter. And 100 speed film holds longer when expired.

All that aside, I just like the look of Tmax-100. I do prefer Plus-x but that's gone.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In general, high speed films have more grain and less tonality. In general tabular grain film has smaller grain than traditional grain films. In general TMax films have a longer and straighter curve than other films and have better reciprocity.

 

[markbau]

In general, high speed films have more grain and less tonality. .

What exactly do you mean by "less tonality"?

 

[Sirius Glass]

What exactly do you mean by "less tonality"?

The tonality is smoother on the low speed films, however I find with replenished XTOL and pyro developer, I am well satisfied with the 400 speed films. Plus with the exposure latitude of the modern films, I prefer the wider range of lighting opportunities before I have to use a tripod. When necessary I will use a good stable carbon fiber tripod but I prefer not to incur the extra weight.

 

[miha]

What exactly do you mean by "less tonality"?

I find the opposite to be true.

 

[runswithsizzers]

What exactly do you mean by "less tonality"?

Good question. After 15 or 20 minutes searching online; and after checking the indexes of two technical books on developing and printing b&w negatives - I did not find a clear and concise definition of tonality in the context of black and white photography.

But I gather "tones" are shades-of-gray, so less tonality would mean fewer shades of gray. No sure if saying 'less tonality' is just another way of saying 'more contrast' - or if there is some fine distinction between the two terms which I have not yet discovered.

I think it's safe to say, if I am wrong, someone will correct me.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I don't have much experience of Tri-X although do have some fresh rolls to try, but I've found T-Max 400 extremely reliable and predictable with great quality results for a 400 speed stock.

 

[MattKing]

It is how the tones transition from one to the next that:
a) actually constitutes contrast (nor the range of light to dark); and
b) creates the tonality.
Part b) is hard to quantify - it is quite subjective.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I shoot and print both speeds of TMax in various formats from 35mm to all the way to 8x10. The tonality is analogous because the characteristic curves are similar. Either film can be developer tweaked to do all kinds of similar things. The main differences are speed and grain. If you need a fast film, then TMY400 is the "best" film. But if your priority is the finest grain, then TMX100 is obviously your ticket. It's really that simple, at least until one becomes a gourmet chef with these films.