T Max v. Tri X?

[jdepould]

I've shot 8 rolls of T Max so far since I started taking this photography class at school, and I just bought a couple rolls of Tri X because they were out of T Max at the store. My question is, what is the difference? I checked Kodak's website when I went to buy film for the first time, and the descriptions on both of them were pretty vague. Would anyone like to explain the difference to me as far as real world usage and such? Thx.

[nigelgray]

The best way to find out is shoot them both and compare.

Personally, I despise t-max... although I know people who prefer t-max b/c it is a softer looking film.

Shoot them both and judge for yourself.

[tomfrizelle]

The big difference is in the technology used to create them. Tri-X is an old technology film that has round grains. T-Max is a tabular grain or t-grain film. It uses flat grains which allows more surface area to be exposed to the light. Consequently, because the grains are flat, they are more efficient at gathering light, therefore they are able to make a film less grainy while upping the ISO. If you compare grain structure between Tri-X and T-Max 400, the T-Max film will be far less grainy. The look of the two films is completely different though. Many people have complained that there's too much highlight contrast with T-Max. Newer papers may compensate for this. I haven't printed in the darkroom in a while, so I don't know for sure. Also, if you're hand developing, make sure to properly fix the T-Max. If you don't, you'll see a pronounced magenta cast to the film base. This will increase your contrast on VC papers. If you find a magenta cast on your negs when they're dry, you can refix them without harming anything.

[jdepould]

The big difference is in the technology used to create them. Tri-X is an old technology film that has round grains. T-Max is a tabular grain or t-grain film. It uses flat grains which allows more surface area to be exposed to the light. Consequently, because the grains are flat, they are more efficient at gathering light, therefore they are able to make a film less grainy while upping the ISO. If you compare grain structure between Tri-X and T-Max 400, the T-Max film will be far less grainy. The look of the two films is completely different though. Many people have complained that there's too much highlight contrast with T-Max. Newer papers may compensate for this. I haven't printed in the darkroom in a while, so I don't know for sure. Also, if you're hand developing, make sure to properly fix the T-Max. If you don't, you'll see a pronounced magenta cast to the film base. This will increase your contrast on VC papers. If you find a magenta cast on your negs when they're dry, you can refix them without harming anything.

So far I haven't had any funky color tints on my negs, and I've developed 8 rolls of T-Max. We're using a 12 minute fix time. I'm still messing with development times, we're using D-76, and the instructor is having us process at 10 or 11 mins, while Kodak calls for a shorter development time. We're just talking about normal processing, not push. I'm planning on varying the developer times a bit over the next few rolls just to see what differences I get.

P.S. Thanks, that was exactly the sort of answer I was looking for!

[ghsmith178613]

I've shot 8 rolls of T Max so far since I started taking this photography class at school, and I just bought a couple rolls of Tri X because they were out of T Max at the store. My question is, what is the difference? I checked Kodak's website when I went to buy film for the first time, and the descriptions on both of them were pretty vague. Would anyone like to explain the difference to me as far as real world usage and such? Thx.

i get realllllllllly ocd about this part of imaging. so bear with me.

did you shoot these of the same subject? under the exact same lighting conditions? like a standard target? the kodak gray scale or the macbeth color checker are accepted standards.

why? well, you will be judging you results againt the same origanal tonal ranges and resolutions. this is essential when making decisions about film, chemistry and techniques.

yes, i have done the research and a degree to back it up!

[ghsmith178613]

The big difference is in the technology used to create them. Tri-X is an old technology film that has round grains. T-Max is a tabular grain or t-grain film. It uses flat grains which allows more surface area to be exposed to the light. Consequently, because the grains are flat, they are more efficient at gathering light, therefore they are able to make a film less grainy while upping the ISO. If you compare grain structure between Tri-X and T-Max 400, the T-Max film will be far less grainy. The look of the two films is completely different though. Many people have complained that there's too much highlight contrast with T-Max. Newer papers may compensate for this. I haven't printed in the darkroom in a while, so I don't know for sure.

Magenta still increases the contrast. that part hasn't changed. Make abosolutely certain that you do not over/under aggitate the film when you are processing the film. This will also run the contrast up and down.

Also, if you're hand developing, make sure to properly fix the T-Max. If you don't, you'll see a pronounced magenta cast to the film base. This will increase your contrast on VC papers. If you find a magenta cast on your negs when they're dry, you can refix them without harming anything.
So far I haven't had any funky color tints on my negs, and I've developed 8 rolls of T-Max.

Are you doing the pre-wet cycle with the t-max films? A magenta cast on T-max films, even after fixing for long periods is common. when it happens, don't panic.

We're using a 12 minute fix time.

What? OMG! Ok. The RULE is "twice the clearing time." Pour the fix in, aggitate for a two minute cylce. Visually inspect the film in room light. If the film edges are not transparent (clear film base), put it back in the fix for another minute, repeating until the film clears. then for that total period again. (twice the clearing) if the film takes ten or twelve minutes to clear, well, you are wasting time.

I'm still messing with development times, we're using D-76, and the instructor is having us process at 10 or 11 mins, while Kodak calls for a shorter development time. We're just talking about normal processing, not push. I'm planning on varying the developer times a bit over the next few rolls just to see what differences I get.

ok. processing times depend on aggitation, chemical concentration, and chemical temperature. 68F is the standard.

if you are going to make changes, you need to document it. ideally, you would read the developer going in and coming out. standard labratory proceedure. This all sounds like somebody is messing with chemistry conservation. longer developement and fixing times are possible when you reduce the concentrations.

P.S. Thanks, that was exactly the sort of answer I was looking for!

so, now i wonder where you are going to school. you did mention an instructor. i get really ocd over doing this part......and yes, i have the research and degree to back it up.

[jdepould]

Those answers really don't have much to do with my question. I wasn't asking about the development process, I was asking about the differences between two different films on a general level.

We're not using a solution, it's just straight D-76 and yes, I'm documenting the different timings that I've been experimenting with.

My film isn't magenta, period, I don't know why you feel the need to harp on that.

I'd rather take longer for the film to fix and be sure that it's completely fixed, another few minutes isn't going to have any huge detrimental effect.

As far as where I'm going to school, it really doesn't matter. That's nice that you have a "degree and research" but none of my pictures have been ruined by the horrible horrible way we're developing at my backwards institution.

[nigelgray]

Actually when I heard a 12 minute fix time I thought that was pretty long too. You can over fix film, and 12 minutes is getting pretty close to over fixing in my opinion, unless the fixer is really old. It actually doesn't matter if you under fix, if you do you can always go back and re-fix, if you haven't already dried the film.

If the fixer is freshly mixed you should only need a 5min fix time. Check for clearing after one-two minutes and if it is cleared fix for that amount of time again.

It's better to under fix then over fix. You can always re-fix, you can't un-fix.

Just my $.02.

Good luck.

P.s. It's good to ask about the differences in film, but the best way to learn is to just shoot an see for yourself. I spent a couple months trying to re-search different colour films and I couldn't find any hardcore comparisons. I deceided to just buy a couple rolls of every colour film I wanted to get info on and shot them. I'm found the fuji colour I like the best from trial and error. I still need to go through all of kodak's slide film.

[jdepould]

Actually when I heard a 12 minute fix time I thought that was pretty long too. You can over fix film, and 12 minutes is getting pretty close to over fixing in my opinion, unless the fixer is really old. It actually doesn't matter if you under fix, if you do you can always go back and re-fix, if you haven't already dried the film.

If the fixer is freshly mixed you should only need a 5min fix time. Check for clearing after one-two minutes and if it is cleared fix for that amount of time again.

It's better to under fix then over fix. You can always re-fix, you can't un-fix.

Just my $.02.

Good luck.

P.s. It's good to ask about the differences in film, but the best way to learn is to just shoot an see for yourself. I spent a couple months trying to re-search different colour films and I couldn't find any hardcore comparisons. I deceided to just buy a couple rolls of every colour film I wanted to get info on and shot them. I'm found the fuji colour I like the best from trial and error. I still need to go through all of kodak's slide film.

It does seem a bit long, but the instructions on the fixer powder state 12m as the upper limit for T Max, so I'm not super worried about that. I haven't made any large prints with the Tri-X yet, only contact sheets, so I haven't been able to see the grain differences, though with T Max the grain is so fine that it's barely noticeable, at least in the images I've made.

[jestev]

Ya, I was going to say 12 min is a little long. If I remember correctly I usually did like 5 min fix and then checked it to see if it was magenta or not, but I don't develop my film all that much anymore (I'd rather be printing).

I've always used T-Max. I like 100 speed more than 400 because it's far less grainy.

[madsox]

As someone who grew up on Tri-X and PlusX (oh, and the beauty of old Pan-X - ahh, I loved that in my old TLR), then learned to like the TMaxes as well, my hazy memories follow. I'm just getting back into shooting again, so take everything with a few grains of salt.

First - are you shooting both emulsions at an actual ASA of 400? I know Tri-X performs a lot better at 320, can't remember about TMX 400.

TMax is easier to push, and will give you the smoother grain pattern others have noted. I like the Tri-X grain, which HP-5 is pretty similar to, so I tend to use those for my medium-speed films.

If I recall correctly, Tri-X generally gives better shadow detail and is less prone to blocking the highlights than TMax, especially when the Tri-X is exposed at ASA 320. I think the TMax is more forgiving in the processing, though, so you don't need to be as precise in timing each step in the darkroom.

Try both in a range of situations, though, with some of the same subjects and conditions, to see which you like better. It's mostly going to come down to personal taste, really, although some of the decision on which film to use when depends on what you're shooting and for whom.

Photojournalism, "classic" landscapes, night shots to get that Weegee look? Tri-X, most likely. Wedding photos or formal portraits? Probably TMax.

But I'm just a guy with these opinions, they're free, and worth every penny!

Oh, and I mean "ISO" above. Sorry, geezing again.

Cheers,
Andrew

[jdepould]

As someone who grew up on Tri-X and PlusX (oh, and the beauty of old Pan-X - ahh, I loved that in my old TLR), then learned to like the TMaxes as well, my hazy memories follow. I'm just getting back into shooting again, so take everything with a few grains of salt.

First - are you shooting both emulsions at an actual ASA of 400? I know Tri-X performs a lot better at 320, can't remember about TMX 400.

TMax is easier to push, and will give you the smoother grain pattern others have noted. I like the Tri-X grain, which HP-5 is pretty similar to, so I tend to use those for my medium-speed films.

If I recall correctly, Tri-X generally gives better shadow detail and is less prone to blocking the highlights than TMax, especially when the Tri-X is exposed at ASA 320. I think the TMax is more forgiving in the processing, though, so you don't need to be as precise in timing each step in the darkroom.

Try both in a range of situations, though, with some of the same subjects and conditions, to see which you like better. It's mostly going to come down to personal taste, really, although some of the decision on which film to use when depends on what you're shooting and for whom.

Photojournalism, "classic" landscapes, night shots to get that Weegee look? Tri-X, most likely. Wedding photos or formal portraits? Probably TMax.

But I'm just a guy with these opinions, they're free, and worth every penny!

Oh, and I mean "ISO" above. Sorry, geezing again.

Cheers,
Andrew

lol, ASA/ISO, whatever. That's interesting about exposing it at 320 though, I'll have to try that on my next roll (I assume you're talking about 400 speed film). I just bought 6 more rolls of Tri-X, so I'll be shooting that for awhile. Thx!

[dang]

Another use for TMax is to produce B&W slides from negs, due to it's lower grain pattern, which makes it a really versatile film. I can't recall any other specifics that haven't been covered already, and with that said, I preferred shooting Tri-X too. Probably due for the most part because I'd used it for so many years though, and didn't experiment with TMax enough to really know how well it performed. I agree the best thing to do, is shoot both, and make up your own mind.

[guth_photography]

I shoot with both films, and both have their place in my film holders. I love T-Max for its reciprocity and grain properties, While Tri-X can support more shaddow detail due to the "thick" emulsion (Recipricity of Tri-X Can be Horrible!). However, grain size is a non-issue for me untill I get up around 20x24" prints. (I shoot 4x5" sheet film) Basically I shoot Tmax 400 when I need the Reciprocity bennefits of that emulsion, and Tri-X the rest of the time.

I'll second under rating your films ISO, and adjusting development acordingly. I typically expose at 1/4 suggested ISO (100 for tri-X 320 and tmax 400) and double bath 6 min in Microdol-X, then 4min. in a balanced Alkali (Kodalk) solution. I allways have very easy to print neg's which, in the end, is the goal.

For more information on how I expose/develop read "The Negative" by, you guessed it, Ansel Adams.