Using Expired Tri X

[mdjchat]

Hi all, I have been given 2 rolls of Tri X 400 (exp 2010) and 4 rolls of Tri X 320 (exp 2011) and I don't think that they have been refrigerated. How would you choose to expose them? I've seen some suggestions online that Tri X holds up well and that it should just be shot at box speed whereas others recommend the usual +1 stop exposure. Some folks even reckon that it benefits from a little compensation but not the full +1 stop, more like a half stop. I'm going to use it in my RZ67 so I won't have many shots to experiment/ bracket with.

Thanks for your help - Mat.

 

[FishyFish]

I'd shoot it at box speed, or maybe overexposed by half a stop if you want to be on the safe side.

The rule of thumb for b&w expired film is 1 stop per two decades of expiry.

I posted a thread about shooting a roll of expired Tri-X recently here: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...hica-mat-124-g-and-some-expired-tri-x.661723/

 

[mdjchat]

Thanks Fishy, I didn't realise that it was +1 stop per 2 decades. I might try a half stop over exposure in that case.

I know that the 400 should be more forgiving than the 320 professional so I'll start with that and see how it turns out.

 

[FishyFish]

Thanks Fishy, I didn't realise that it was +1 stop per 2 decades. I might try a half stop over exposure in that case.

No probs. B&W is a bit more forgiving than colour film, so you can overexpose less. Expired colour film does use the one stop per decade rule of thumb though.

I found this to be a useful guide:

http://www.popphoto.com/guide-to-shooting-expired-film

 

[john.margetts]

2010 and 2011? That is new film! I would shoot at box speed and develop normally. Should there be any degradation of the film (unlikely) you would still be within the latitude of the film.

 

[antonroland]

I recently burned a roll of 2014 Tri-X 400 and two rolls of Ilford's glorious 50ISO PanF.

Personally I would always over-expose B&W film by at least a stop - in date or otherwise.

A thicker negative (within limits!) is simply more pleasing and effective for me personally.

In Sunny f/16 conditions I do find that blue skies wash out a bit but could not be bothered to try yellow or red filters yet.

I do tend to expose more critically and would often do 4 or 5 exposures where 2 or 3 might have worked.

My 2c worth.

 

[ChrisR]

I know that the 400 should be more forgiving than the 320 professional so I'll start with that and see how it turns out.

I got the impression from somewhere that these were the same film, just more accurately rated at 320 for the pros... can you still get Tri-X 320?

 

[mdjchat]

I got the impression from somewhere that these were the same film, just more accurately rated at 320 for the pros... can you still get Tri-X 320?

I don't know that much about them, only what I've read online. As far as I know the 320 txp is no longer produced, only the standard Tri-X 400. Comments online suggested that the 320 had less exposure latitude and gave smoother tones with slightly lower contrast.

 

[ChrisR]

I don't know that much about them, only what I've read online. As far as I know the 320 txp is no longer produced, only the standard Tri-X 400. Comments online suggested that the 320 had less exposure latitude and gave smoother tones with slightly lower contrast.

Apparently Tri-X 320 is still produced, for 4*5 and 5*7 sheet sizes, and is indeed a different film. Took me to the Tri-X data sheet, where the reciprocity graph has gobbledegook on the axes! The perils of publishing PDFs without thinking about fonts... but that's another story (http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/f4017_TriX.pdf page 2).