Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/27

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Tri-X vs T-Max
From: David Prakel <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 09:26:49 +0100

> Re: Tri-X vs T-Max

I'm normally suspicious of other's film experiences until I've tried them
myself. I used Tri-X many years ago and found its grain a limiting factor -
it was only ideal for the railway/industrial picture I was taking.

I've been happy with TMax 400 in D76 1:1 but recently tried a roll of Tri-X.
It's not the same film I used to use. It does however have a tonality that I
found very attractive with landscape. The grain seems far more controlled
than of yore. I was almost tempted to start using Tri-X again!

Despite my comments about suspicions of other's experiences I was intrigued
to see an example of how controlled the grain can be with Tri-X in Jonathan
Eastland's book (3rd Ed) Essential Darkroom techniques (page 108). Very good
grain from EI400/D76 1:1. As Eastland is one of the few commentator's who
uses Leica's and whose writing and images bear out his philosophy and
techniques it is worth quoting his thoughts on Tri-X. "outshines all the
rest"..."Ideally developed in dilute D76"..."latitude approximately one and
a half stops on either side of recommended speed"..."Some photographers have
mentioned to me that the film produces negatives which are often unsharp and
overly my experience, had the ability to produce negs of
excellent quality and sharpness"..."For best results, exposure should be
made for the mid to lighter tones and the film processed with a minimum of
agitation, as recommended by Kodak, and the temperature strictly

- --
David Prakel