Tri-X 400 vs T-MAX 400

[braxus]

Can someone comment or show samples of the newest versions of Tri-X 400 and TMax 400? I have used Tri-X 400 last year, but Id like to see comparisons from someone who has used both of these recently. I haven't used TMAX 400 since they revised it a few years ago. And someone said that Tri-X now incorporates some T-grains in it now. I'm wondering about the look of the TMAX film now. Im wondering about tonality and sharpness. I already know the grains of the TMAX film are smaller.

 

[MattKing]

Current TMY-2 - which is my go to film now:

There are several more in the Photrio Gallery: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/users/mattking.6437/
I don't know about you, but I find that the process of scanning and then squeezing the results on to the Photrio screen makes film evaluation suspect.

 

[GLS]

Personally I much prefer T-Max 400 to Tri-X 400. I have seen some absolutely exquisite examples from others using the latter, but it just doesn't seem to agree with me. No doubt I just haven't tried the right developer.

Anyway, here are some TMY-2 examples of mine, all developed in Pyrocat-HD:

 

[DREW WILEY]

Tiny web pictures won't tell you much. Tri-X and TMY400 are very different animals. TMax has much finer grain and is capable of holding significantly greater detail. It also has a much longer straight line to its characteristic curve. Some people find the look and shotgun grain of Tri-X rewarding, but I seldom use it; it can't be enlarged nearly as much without looking odd. 120 film is so cheap that you might as well test them both. TMax has a bit stiffer learning curve and tends to require more careful metering. Pyro developers work especially well for both.

 

[pentaxuser]

GLS your first two pics especially have a great 3D look. Just a comment, OP. I am not trying to say that this effect is peculiar to TMax as opposed to Tri-X

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Nice tones.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Can someone comment or show samples of the newest versions of Tri-X 400 and TMax 400? I have used Tri-X 400 last year, but Id like to see comparisons from someone who has used both of these recently. I haven't used TMAX 400 since they revised it a few years ago. And someone said that Tri-X now incorporates some T-grains in it now. I'm wondering about the look of the TMAX film now. Im wondering about tonality and sharpness. I already know the grains of the TMAX film are smaller.

TMY-II is much finer grained and sharper than TX, but has a significantly different curve shape - essentially a short toe and a long straight line. TX has the classic roll-off in the highlights & much crunchier grain - the specific grain make-up doesn't matter as much as the overall design philosophy & sensitisation choices etc of the film design.

If you can't make great prints from these films developed in D-76/ ID-11 or XTOL, the problem lies in neither the film nor the chemistry.

 

[braxus]

The varying skin tones with Caucasians looking darker in tone and that glow from highlight to darker in skin, is one thing I'm after. My Avatar is an example of that. It was shot on Tri-X back in 2005, but I know the film has changed since then. I see great skin tone shots on TMAX 400, so I wonder if it might give more of that effect then Tri-X. Plus to have a sharper finer grained film for some things would be a bonus. I shot a pic of my mom last year on Tri-X, and though it was indoors, it looked flat. Grainy as heck too. Part of that may have come from not developing it right away, but I send my film to a lab to process and print/scan. I don't have the desire to do it myself.

This webpage shows some good sample of skin tones off TMAX 400:

https://mrleica.com/tag/tmax-400-vs-hp5/

 

[Bill Burk]

To know the difference, you would have to read what DREW WILEY says or read Ralph Lambrecht's book Way Beyond Monochrome.

The difference that I know is the toe, and the spectral response. You can always pop a yellow filter on Tri-X and give it similar spectral response to TMAX-400, but then you lose a stop of speed.

The toe is important to portrait photographers, because when you go to print, you want a print to have values from key black to key white and everything in between. A long toe lets you get that, but allows you to print on higher contrast paper (with a higher contrast grade filter).

With that higher contrast paper, you are able to clearly see tones in Zone VI skintones which is critical to portraiture. For nature photography, the high grays are not as critically valuable, so you can stand to shoot with a straight line.

 

[jim10219]

The varying skin tones with Caucasians looking darker in tone and that glow from highlight to darker in skin, is one thing I'm after. My Avatar is an example of that. It was shot on Tri-X back in 2005, but I know the film has changed since then. I see great skin tone shots on TMAX 400, so I wonder if it might give more of that effect then Tri-X. Plus to have a sharper finer grained film for some things would be a bonus. I shot a pic of my mom last year on Tri-X, and though it was indoors, it looked flat. Grainy as heck too. Part of that may have come from not developing it right away, but I send my film to a lab to process and print/scan. I don't have the desire to do it myself.

This webpage shows some good sample of skin tones off TMAX 400:

https://mrleica.com/tag/tmax-400-vs-hp5/

You'd probably be best sticking the Tri-X. It's not as sharp, and doesn't have as nice of mid tones, but it does have more contrast, which seems to be what you're after.

However, you might want to find a different lab if you're having issues with grain in your scans. Most of the time, a scan won't be high resolution enough to resolve the grain of the film, so what you're seeing when you see grain in a scan is actually scanner noise. If the film looks flat, it could be from being underexposed. The scanner may have compensated for that, so the scan doesn't look underexposed, but it will come out kind of flat looking.

Often, getting a high contrast look with good highlights and shadow is more a function of lighting and proper camera exposure than the type of film used.

 

[Bill Burk]

You can get the look in your avatar with either film. I am guessing your Tri-X may have had generous exposure that brought the black in your hair to the straight line. If you bracketed, look for the thinnest negative where you can see a little texture in the clear parts. See if your negative shows a little detail in your hair.

If your hair is solid clear on the negative then it’s underexposed, if you can barely see detail it’s right. If the negative is kind of gray there, then it’s overexposed and you’re not taking advantage of the toe.

 

[Rudeofus]

Since you were asking for side by side examples, this web page offers them for some developers.

There was some speculation about T-grain being in Tri-X now, but Bob Shanebrook's book allegedly put those speculations to rest.

 

[NB23]

Tmax 400 is a superior film, its spectral sensitivity is perfect.

 

[radiant]

Tmax 400 is a superior film, its spectral sensitivity is perfect.

What benefits perfect spectral sensitivity brings to the game / how perfect/non-perfect sensitivity differs?

I think T-Max 400 is too contrasty for my taste. I prefer Tri-X of these two. The grain is pleasant on Tri-X and without grain the photos start to look like digital captures. I think tasty amount of grain is essential in film B&W photography. Not too much but avoiding grain is a bit strange target.

TMY-II is much finer grained and sharper than TX, but has a significantly different curve shape - essentially a short toe and a long straight line. TX has the classic roll-off in the highlights & much crunchier grain - the specific grain make-up doesn't matter as much as the overall design philosophy & sensitisation choices etc of the film design.

This is what I have found myself, the toe is too short for my taste and makes the photos look too contrasty.

 

[markbau]

There was some speculation about T-grain being in Tri-X now, but Bob Shanebrook's book allegedly put those speculations to rest.

The following is from Steve Anchell's Darkroom Cookbook (4th edition)
"Tri-X is now a semi-flat grain film with colour-dye sensitisers"
It would appear to be true that it does not contain tabular grain but having used some 120 Tri-X recently, it definitely is not the same Tri-X that I loved in the 70s and 80s.

 

[NB23]

What benefits perfect spectral sensitivity brings to the game / how perfect/non-perfect sensitivity differs?

I think T-Max 400 is too contrasty for my taste. I prefer Tri-X of these two. The grain is pleasant on Tri-X and without grain the photos start to look like digital captures. I think tasty amount of grain is essential in film B&W photography. Not too much but avoiding grain is a bit strange target.



This is what I have found myself, the toe is too short for my taste and makes the photos look too contrasty.

Spectral sensitivity is the number one aspect I look for in a BW film. Pan-f is another perfect film in that regard (to me). The overall look, the first thing that defines a BW image is this, the spectral translation from color to BW.

Yes, tmax400 has to be very carefully developed because overdevelopment quickly kills it. But if one follows the Kodak recomendations one ends up with superb results.

Sure, it’s all a matter of taste, but too much red sensitivity in a film makes me have zits. I’m allergic to that look, and yes, I’m super over-sensitive to this stuff.
Call me crazy or maniacal, which is perfectly fine.

 

[Lachlan Young]

What benefits perfect spectral sensitivity brings to the game / how perfect/non-perfect sensitivity differs?

I think T-Max 400 is too contrasty for my taste. I prefer Tri-X of these two. The grain is pleasant on Tri-X and without grain the photos start to look like digital captures. I think tasty amount of grain is essential in film B&W photography. Not too much but avoiding grain is a bit strange target.



This is what I have found myself, the toe is too short for my taste and makes the photos look too contrasty.

No, it sounds like you are underexposing and over processing. In your system TX may have a slightly softer toe & this is giving the impression of lower contrast. If anything, TMY-II is capable of delivering a more even tonal scale than TX.

The following is from Steve Anchell's Darkroom Cookbook (4th edition)
"Tri-X is now a semi-flat grain film with colour-dye sensitisers"

I'd be inclined to trust Shanebrook over Anchell by a large margin on this. Anchell makes a sequence of very elementary errors about emulsion technology & sensitisation. TX and all the other films have evolved as grain growth and sensitising technologies have changed over the years - they don't exist in stasis.

 

[Bill Burk]

The spectral sensitivity I appreciate is that you can see clouds in the sky without a yellow filter. Pretty simple to see.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Some moldy old bits of misinformation tend to creep into these discussions. The early version of TMX100 did have some excess red sensitivity. The current versions of both speeds are especially well balanced, a fact which analytic tests through various strong filters prove, but lie well beyond the present discussion. Otherwise, I'm not going to get entangled with refuting certain blanket statements which are pure nonsense. I shoot both the TMax films in formats all the way from 35mm to 8x10, and use them for technical lab applications as well. I am highly familiar with many other films too. Take your pick. But the majority of complaints are really due to a lack of experience along with incorrect exposure and processing.

 

[NB23]

Some moldy old bits of misinformation tend to creep into these discussions. The early version of TMX100 did have some excess red sensitivity. The current versions of both speeds are especially well balanced, a fact which analytic tests through various strong filters prove, but lie well beyond the present discussion. Otherwise, I'm not going to get entangled with refuting certain blanket statements which are pure nonsense. I shoot both the TMax films in formats all the way from 35mm to 8x10, and use them for technical lab applications as well. I am highly familiar with many other films too. Take your pick. But the majority of complaints are really due to a lack of experience along with incorrect exposure and processing.

I’m not sure what you are talking about exactly, there is nothing in this discussion that says that tmX100 or 400 are too red sensitive.

 

[pentaxuser]

. It was shot on Tri-X back in 2005, but I know the film has changed since then.

OP but anyone really who has the information. I hadn't realised that there have been changes since 2005. What were they?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

OP but anyone really who has the information. I hadn't realised that there have been changes since 2005. What were they?

Thanks

pentaxuser

None, as far as is known. The quality of whoever does OP's processing may have changed however.

 

[Bill Burk]

NB23 wrote about blemishes. Tri-X is more red sensitive than TMAX-400.

If anything, pimples would be diminished on Tri-X because they are red, and a red sensitive film would make them brighter, closer to the surrounding skin.

Wold this be another reason to prefer Tri-X for portraiture?

 

[mshchem]

The spectral sensitivity I appreciate is that you can see clouds in the sky without a yellow filter. Pretty simple to see.

Truth, same with Acros.

 

[NB23]

NB23 wrote about blemishes. Tri-X is more red sensitive than TMAX-400.

If anything, pimples would be diminished on Tri-X because they are red, and a red sensitive film would make them brighter, closer to the surrounding skin.

Wold this be another reason to prefer Tri-X for portraiture?

No! Tmax!! Prefering TMY!

Portraiture = Tmax400.

Tri-x is not so bad in the red department but still, I am allergic films that are too sensitive to red (allergic to the look, actually).