Kodak Trix 400

Lotus65 · 2011-06-23T08:51:59+00:00

Hat hier jemand Erfahrungen mit dem Film im besonderen über die anschließende Entwicklung (Entwickler, Zeiten, etc.)???

Lotus65

Does anyone here have any experience with this film, particularly regarding the subsequent development process (developer, processing times, etc.)???

Gast

Hello, Here’s someone who performed the exposure with Xtol at 3200 ISO: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luketrash/5428324036/in/photostream Tri-X Pan is very robust and can handle almost anything. The classic developer for this film would be Kodak D-76 with 1:1 dilution: http://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/fotochemie/black-and-white-developer/kodak-d76-for-1-liter.html Here is the Tri-X data sheet: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf Best regards, Wolfgang

Lotus65

Hello, Here’s someone who performed the exposure with Xtol at 3200 ISO: http://www.flickr.com/photos/luketrash/5428324036/in/photostream Tri-X Pan is very robust and can handle almost anything. The classic developer for this film would be Kodak D-76 with a 1:1 dilution: http://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/fotochemie/black-and-white-developer/kodak-d76-for-1-liter.html Here is the data sheet for Tri-X: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf Regards Wolfgang

Thanks for the initial tip. Does the film really have such a wide exposure latitude? And what about the grain size? Regards Uwe

Kryschtof

Thanks for pointing that out. Does the film really have such a wide exposure latitude? And what about the grain size?

In this shot, the black panels dominate in terms of surface area. With integral exposure metering, the camera automatically exposes for the brightest area, and that is the sole reason why the image doesn’t suffer from underexposure at an ISO setting of 3200. A 400 film will never have a true ISO 3200, not even ISO 800, no matter how you develop it. Even with Diafine, Tri-X doesn’t exceed ISO 500, even if others claim otherwise. Very few people use a spot meter when taking photos and a densitometer after developing the film. This lack of precision fuels the creation of myths. Tri-X is certainly not a bad film, but for me, purely subjectively, the HP5 has the more pleasing grain structure. It’s purely a matter of taste. Regards, Christof

sputnik

Thanks for the initial tip. Does the film really have such a wide exposure latitude? And what about the grain size?
In this shot, the black panels dominate in terms of surface area. With integral exposure metering, the camera automatically exposes for the brightest area, and that is the sole reason why the image doesn’t suffer from underexposure at an ISO setting of 3200. A 400 film will never have a true ISO 3200, not even ISO 800, no matter how you develop it. Even with Diafine, Tri-X doesn’t exceed ISO 500, even if others claim otherwise. Very few people use a spot meter when taking photos and a densitometer after film development. This lack of precision fuels the creation of myths. Tri-X is certainly not a bad film, but for me, purely subjectively, the HP5 has the more pleasing grain structure. It’s purely a matter of taste. Regards Christof

I use a spot meter. For me, the TX in Diafine is just under 800 ISO. At 500 ISO, Zone 1 already has 0.15 Dlog.

Kryschtof

I use a spot meter. For me, the TX in Diafine is just under 800 ISO. At 500 ISO, Zone 1 already has 0.15 Dlog.

That’s interesting. Philipp Leser has also tested this combination, among others, and arrives at 400 ISO: http://www.philippleser.de/interaction/foto/filmtesting/ Unfortunately, the charts on that page are no longer available. In any case, the result roughly matches my own tests.

sputnik

I use a spot meter. For me, the TX in Diafine is just under 800 ISO. At 500 ISO, Zone 1 already has 0.15 Dlog.
That’s interesting. Philipp Leser has also tested this combination, among others, and arrives at 400 ASA: http://www.philippleser.de/interaction/foto/filmtesting/ Unfortunately, the diagrams on that page are no longer there. In any case, the result roughly matches my own tests.

Well. Since nobody tests under laboratory conditions and everyone works with THEIR camera, THEIR spot meter and THEIR densitometer, I’m not at all surprised that people arrive at different results. For example, I carry out my tests in the late afternoon, as I tend to take photos at that time or early in the morning. The spectral composition of the light is completely different then compared to midday. That certainly makes a difference. Perhaps you simply didn’t pay attention to your own body shadow whilst testing. :-) Be that as it may. In any case, not only do the readings match for me, but so do the negatives in terms of image quality. And that’s surely the most important thing, isn’t it? Best regards, S.