Tri-X or T-Max

Kev M

Kev M

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,347
Name
You can call me Sir.
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm after a replacement for my beloved Neopan 400:dummy: I don't really like HP5 so I'm thinking of trying a Kodak film as I dev in D-76. The question is Tri-X or T-Max, which is going to be more like Neopan?

I did a bit of a google about the differences (physical not technical) between the two and although T-Max sounds better to me it didn't get a favourable review although I did note that all of the threads comparing the two were from before T-Max was reformulated in 2008.
 
T-Max seems to get an absolute kicking by those on film fora - gets terrible comments and anecdotes made on lack of latitude, how it looks too much like digital, etc etc.

I personally really like it, and it's my go-to B&W emulsion. It has great latitude (I now shoot it at ISO800 without change of developing time), and the shadows retain a superb amount of detail (with the appropriate developer).

Try both. Both will work superbly with D-76 (all film works well with D-76, that's pretty much the developing baseline that manufacturers work towards).

Neither will fully replace Neopan though, it'll be a compromise. And I'm guessing you mean medium format Neopan 400 for your SQ-A, seeing as 35mm Neopan 400 is still available?
 
Kev M said:
I'm after a replacement for my beloved Neopan 400:dummy: I don't really like HP5 so I'm thinking of trying a Kodak film as I dev in D-76. The question is Tri-X or T-Max, which is going to be more like Neopan?

I did a bit of a google about the differences (physical not technical) between the two and although T-Max sounds better to me it didn't get a favourable review although I did note that all of the threads comparing the two were from before T-Max was reformulated in 2008.
Click to expand...

I take it you are looking for a 120 film, as it's still available in 35mm. I use HP5+ personally as I like the look and the financial stability of ilford! I found tmax to be much more intolerant to exposure and development deviations than tri-x when I tried it but preferred the look of hp5+ to either. Tmax does have a much finer grain than either, when exposed and developed correctly.
 
Sorry, should have mentioned it's 120. I'll order a pack of T-Max to try first then, if I like it then it stays, if not then I'll try Tri-X. Perhaps I'll give HP5 another whirl, maybe I'll like its prints better than its scans.
 
With 120, the differences between the two are actually surprisingly little IMO - it's at 35mm where the differences are more apparent. HP5+ was never a preference of mine either, which goes to show how personal emulsion choices are to everyone.

The grain is very fine - it's so fine that I sometimes struggle finding grain to focus on with the loupe when printing!
 
Neopan used to be my film, replaced it with tri-x in XTOL, tmax just looked flat in comparison lacking in bite.

As always do your own tests and you decide what us right for your style of shooting.
 
I've always found Tmax to be a bit flat as well. Much more 'standard' looking than Tri-X and a little more than HP5. Tri-X is probably my favourite film because of its punch, but I use HP5 more because it's easier to get from shops and comes in 25 sheet boxes, as opposed to Tri-X's 50 sheet boxes.

However, with Tri-X, it will always look like Tri-X. Whenever I see a print of it it's usually the first thing I notice. Tmax is probably a better choice in that regard. Depends how you look at it, I suppose.
 
I like t-max as the weird contrast curve it seems to have can give pretty cool "pop" to things as opposed to just making them look flat.
Like the girls glasses in this pic
0055Custom.jpg
 
Well I managed to shoot a couple of rolls of T-Max and my last roll of Neopan last week, I just need to buy a new thermometer and then I can get to work developing them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top