Film Showcase Kodak Tri-X 400

jai

Regular
There obviously needs to be a thread for this. This is the film by which all others are judged, and I haven't found any that are better.

If you want to get into film, and don't know what to shoot, shoot Tri-X.

It is incredibly versatile. You can get quite a grungy, grainy, high contrast look:

View attachment 614

View attachment 615

View attachment 616

Or, you can overexpose it a little, and develop it in something like XTOL. This can give you really clean, sharp, detailed results.

17315483992_7bd41bb649_b.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've shot both Tri-X and FP4, and actually I don't really agree.

If you want something more nuanced and lower contrast, I think the exposure and development plays a much bigger roll than film choice. You can pull Tri-X down a stop and it will still be faster than FP4.

Weirdly, i found the grain on Tri-X @ 200 to be finer than FP4 @ 100. But that was just my experience, and why I stopped using FP4 in favour of Pan F 50. I might have been able to get better results if i kept at it
 
I could be wrong too! There are so many variables, especially when you shoot B&W film and then process yourself. It's hard to know anything definitively.

In the end it would be pretty easy to trick me into thinking a photo was shot on Tri-X when it was really FP4, or vice versa.
 
I really like Tri-X, however I find home scanning B&W difficult, it is hard to get rid of all the dust even after running the dust reduction.
These shot with my Konica Auto S2

Negative-400058.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Negative-400082.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Yeah, I think most scanners struggle with dust detection on Black and white film.

I leave my film hanging, drying in the shower until the minute I'm ready to scan. Apparently showers are relatively dust free because humidity in the air causes the dust to drop out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top