Re: [Leica] All hail Tri-X

[TTAbrahams@aol.com]

 I have been following the Tri-X debate with interest. The first rolls of 
this film that I exposed were in 1957 - it was recommended to be rated at 200 
ASA at the time and it was regarded by the professionals with great 
suspicion; "can't be any good, grain must be golf ball sized" etc. At that 
time there were some fast films available, Ilford's HPS (truly golf ball 
sized grain), Super XX and some Ferrania emulsions, but the Tri-X in D76 
1:1/10 minutes was a revelation. Smooth grain, nice midtones and you could 
push and pull it in every which way. I have stayed with the Tri-X ever since, 
I have developed it in just about every kind of developer made (either by me 
or by others). I have exposed it from 25 ASA to 6400 ASA, it has been 
hyper-sensitized with mercury and other less toxic chemicals, pre-flashed, 
post-flashed (not intentionally!) and stored in every which way you can store 
film and it always gives you a neg. You can print (not all of these look good 
as a print, but they all gave me an image!).
 In our living room hang three 16x20 prints, shot on Tri-X and printed by an 
expert. They are 3 prints by Costa Manos of Magnum fame. Two are from his 
Greek Village book and the 3rd one is the famous shoot with the black woman 
crying at her nephew's funeral (Vietnam casualty). Costa is not only one hell 
of a photographer, he is also a Master printer. Whenever I go into the dark 
room to print I am looking for a fraction of the quality that he has got out 
of Tri-X. Trust me, it is a humbling experience to come out with what I think 
is a good print and look at Costa's print. Same film, same camera and most 
likely same chemistry and although I am not a bad printer, he is so much 
better! Tri-X, HP5, Fuji 400, APX 400 etc makes very little difference, it is 
the printing that takes the neg. to a different level. Ansel Adams said that 
the negative is the score, but the final print is the performance.
 Every year I buy a couple of 100 feet of every 400 ASA film available and 
"test" it. It is not a scientific test by any means, I shoot each of these 
30-40 rolls the same way I shoot my Tri-X, 5 rolls are done according to 
manufacturers recommendation, 5 rolls are done in D-76 1:1 and the balance is 
done in whatever developer is my current fancy (at the moment PMK and MCM 
1000 as well as one of the old Catechol based developers from an old British 
Journal of Photography). The end result is boringly predictable - after 2-300 
rolls I stock up on Tri-X again and shoot with it until the next year!
 My feeling is that film is a very personal choice, you learn what the film 
will do and automatically compensate for the weaknesses and once you know how 
it behaves, you have eliminated one more problem in your shooting style. I am 
quite sure that if I had started out with HP-5 I would have stuck to that for 
all these decades.
 The area were I switch films are in the slow films, Delta 100 and Fuji 
Presto 100 and Fuji's Neopan F are current favourites (The Neopan F works 
extremely well in PMK! You just need a lot of light to use it.). Now as for 
the pinkish/magenta caste on some film, just fix them longer! But can anybody 
explain why my Delta films creates enough foam in the tank to almost pop the 
lid, while neither the Fuji or Kodak films does this?
 It probably does not matter which film you use, just learn to use it well 
and use a lot of it. 
Tom A