Kodak Tri-X 400 - Is it REALLY better??
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 лис 2023
- #filmphotography #film #120film #blackandwhite #kodaktrix #kodak #kentmere #kentmere400 #aristaEDU #comparison
In this episode I put two budget-friendly black and white films - Arista EDU 400 and Kentmere Pan 400 - up against Kodak Tri-X. Is the Kodak film worth the extra money?
6T65MEEX1RAKDVZ5
6KLCMEYRKKNLPUMN
MPLPTVATWLQC2ZO9
NUPV1DXVSM0HRXMF
I have been shooting Tri-X for just about 50 years. Great latitude and versatility with different developers.
Most of my film photography career I only shot T-Max 400 for that speed range. Sadly, I missed out on how Tri-X was indeed quite versatile. Never too late to develop a new favorite, though! It’s just so easy to work with.
Tri-X was rated at ASA 200 when I started shooting it. Later, the film was re rated to ASA 400, but I don't think the film was actually changed, just the rating. As a newspaper photographer, I shot countless rolls of Tri-X. A lab tech told me to meter at ASA 320 and develop like it was shot at 400. My favorite b&w film!
Tri-X has such a great exposure latitude, too. It’s no wonder it was the preferred favorite of the Press.
The ASA standard was changed in 1959 and the ratings for black and white films more or less doubled as a result.
Thanks for that info. I knew it had changed at some point, but wasn’t sure when.
And that was when my much missed Kodachrome went from ASA 12 to my beloved Kodachrome 25.
Great comparison. The Arista film is sold as Fomapan 400 in the Uk. I generally use it for testing cameras.
I think that’s an excellent use for it. I mean, it has its place. I just can’t seem to find a way to make it fit with my “style” - whatever that is, lol.
I am a professional photographer in Los Angeles California and I have always used Tri-X120 for black and white head shots why would I use anything else it’s true tried and tested and gives me that classic look did I forget I also make money using it ! ITs also my style! FYI shoot it at 100 iso
It does have the “classic” look. Hard to beat it.
Great analysis, thank you!
Thanks for watching!
Thanks! Loved it!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Excellent video and I love your delivery brother.
Many, many thanks! I do appreciate that!
Great video! That said, at 4X the price of the others, TriX 400 should be. I shoot Foma at $1. a 4 x 5 sheet.
You are absolutely right about that! I’ve not tried any of the LF yet. But I should. I see it being used a LOT.
I've always liked Tri-X, been using it since the 1970's. I have watched several reviews of different black and white film stocks and always felt I stumbled into the right choice years ago. You're review, which I found to be quite objective, substantiates and confirms my choice. I've never stopped shooting film though have been running 10% film vs. 90% digital throughout the digital era. That ratio is going to change though in favor of film. Been using an older Mamyia 6x6 TLR and now just switched to a Fujica 6x9 rangefinder from the 1980's, the "Texas Leica," and I'm glad I did for the larger aspect ratio and negative size. Just ran my first roll of Kodacolor Gold 200 and was pleased. I guess I'm truly a Kodak film fan. Regards! J. R.
Thanks for tuning in! I’d love to get my hands on one of those old Fujicas. I will one day. The idea of a 6x9 rangefinder is really appealing. Glad you found the video helpful. I learned as much as anyone while doing this test. Now, I’m making lists of what other films to compare. Or even comparing developers on the same stock. So much to explore!
Kodak Tri-X was the film my teacher wanted our class to use when introduced to B&W photography. I'd love to get back into film photography again and my No. 1 choice would still be Tri-X.
My teacher did, too! But I gravitated to Plus-X instead. And then to the TMax films when they came out. Turns out it took me MANY years to revisit Tri-X and appreciate it. I’ve been missing out for sure. I still do prefer the T-Max films (sort of), but Tri-X is so easy to work with to get great results.
I probably started with Plus-X and switched to Tri-X to be able to get better shots in low light without a flash. I would routinely push Tri-X to 800.@@vintagecameradigest
Excellent video, thank you. I think I'll stick with my T-Max and Tri-X.
I’m a huge fan of the T-Max films. And of course it’s hard to beat Tri-X for that classic film look. I’m also partial to the Ilford Deltas. The budget films do have a place in all of this. But users need to temper their expectations. I liked the tonal range of the Kentmere, but the amount of grain was a bit unexpected. Thanks for watching!
As a fellow Georgian, I am glad I found your channel. I haven't shot film in a while but I also have never shot Kentmere and don't think I will, but I have shot and like the Arista, but for black and white as a choice, I love the T-Max. Thanks for sharing
Thanks for tuning in! T-Max (100 and 400) are probably my favorites of all time. A bit pricey now, though. BUT there are rumors of some Kodak price reductions coming, and I do hope that is true. I’m a big fan of the tabular grain, so I also am quite happy with Ilford Delta films. Tri-X, though, just makes it easy to get the results I want - especially with D-76.
Great job! A proper thorough test. Surprised at the Kentmere, hoped for more from that film! But we all know about Tri-X, gorgeous film, a firm favourite of course!
I’m still going to prefer the Kentmere over the Arista/Foma. It appears to have excellent exposure latitude and good separation of mid-tones. The grain is disappointing, but I can put up with that for a lot of subjects, I think. And the price-point just can’t be beat. I’m currently making my way through a 100-ft roll of the 35mm Kentmere 100, and it’s OK. I’ve been using Ilfosol-3 at 1:9, and I think that’s a bit better than the D-76. I’ll be putting the 120 size through the Ikonta, then I’ll really be able to tell if there’s much difference.
Would love to see a premium comparison - Acros, Tri-X, Delta
Not a bad idea! I’ll put that on the list. Thanks!
excellent video. Thanks for this
Glad you enjoyed it!
Very interesting test. I learn a few new things. Congratulations for the milestone. For sure you're going to achieve more audience.
I learned a few things, myself. I had no intention of spending that much time with the histograms. But they do tell the story. Thanks for watching!
Firstly, congrats on your 1000+ subs. Secondly, this was another informative video. A great deal to think about. More so than to just pick up 'any old roll of film'. I need to brush-up on my histogram reading, I see. It appears that the Tri-X should be my film of choice, and that Arista is better done at 200ASA, and maybe Kentmere is better at 800ASA.
Thank you! I looked at these histograms for hours on end. It turned out to be much more involved than my 100 speed comparison was. I should probably go back and re-do that at some point. But, your take-away of the test is about what I’d say mine is, too. Tri-X is a great film to shoot at box speed AND is pretty darn good at 2-stops under without pushing. Excellent all-around. Kentmere definitely has some leeway in the underexposure, too. I have a roll or two of the 100 speed that I shot at EI 200, and I plan on processing normally. Just to see. My guess is that rating the 400 and 800 and processing normally will still give great results. Now for the Arista - yeah, it could use some over-exposure.
Tri-X is King, I have no doubt about that. However, in today's world of making images with film and digitizing them, Kentmere's "Flatness" is exceptional for scanning, and handles better when digital adjustments. Just my opinion.
It’s a valid opinion. I haven’t made any traditional darkroom prints in over 20 yrs. Everything I do gets digitized. What’s your recommended developer for Kentmere? My standard go-to is D-76, but I just got my hands on some Ilfosol. So I’m excited to try it out. I have a large stash of Kentmere film now, so I’ll be using it for the next couple of months.
@@vintagecameradigest I have found Ilfosol works well, 1:9 I was looking for something more economical and have found Rollei Compard R09 also works very well 1:25 (at least for me) I like the grain look and this gives me a good balance. To be honest I always used Kodak products since 1976 but when digital hit in the 90's I sold off all my film stuff. I just recently returned in the early summer, so I'm still experimenting. I found Kodak is not the same and is expensive. I'm currently searching for a good HP5 4x5 developer combo. The RO9 doesn't seem to work well The Ilfosol seems to be OK but I can't seem to get consistent results. Hope that helps.
Ok, so I’m definitely going to focus on Ilfosol in the next few months. Sounds like a good place to start. Thanks!
Agree. If Tri-X laid as flat as Kentmere I’d never pick up a roll of Kentmere ever again.
I bought a film with Kodax TX400 written on it. Is that tri-x?
I have just bought TriX after a very long time, lets put it this way whe I used TriX Hasselblad didnt have a 501 CM. It is not the same emulsion. Something has changed. I have heard that it is now Hybrid emulsion. One film that I have been very impressed with is wjat Rollei sells as RPX400. Trust me, after 45 years of shooting film in all formats, I know what I am talking about.
Yes, the current Tri-X has a bit less silver than the original, I think. Still, I think the sharpness and resolution of it are excellent - especially compared to these other two. I’ll need to do another comparison video sometime using the more upscale films. Would be interesting, I think.
Good comparisons. Overall, Kentmere disappoints most of the time; TriX and HP5 are my favorites. How about pushing them? I think HP5 is great at that - but my preference is not for the subtle, but for contrast. Seeing the histograms is especially useful as I am used to S-Curves for contrast or detail as needed. Looking forward to more!
Thanks! I learned a lot myself from this test, so seeing how these can be pushed would be a logical next step. Tri-X was so good at the -2 stops, it should be excellent at it. And of course it is since folks have been doing that for decades. But it would be interesting to see the histograms of just what is gained v lost. My next task is to get my hands on some HP5. It’s been a while since I’ve shot it, and I think then it was in 4x5.
Very interesting video.
RS. Canada
Many thanks!
This was one of the best film comparison videos out there. Thank you SO SO much for making it.
I have a quick metering question. I’m just a poor boy from a poor family and all I have is an old analog Pentax spot meter. If I added the EV of the highlight and the EV of the shadow and divided by 2 would I be doing the same thing as your Minolta digital meter … sort of? Or is EV not linear?
Yes, that would be exactly the same. I just tried it out on my meter to make sure. Great question. And thanks for watching!
@@vintagecameradigest thanks for the help. I’ve almost binged all the episodes. Glad I came across your channel.
What I love to hear! :-) Thanks so much for watching!
Whenever I shoot Fomapan, I expose it at 320 or 250 when processing it in FX-55 (which gives a slight boost in speed compared to D-76, and is pretty much Crawley's slightly better version of XTOL). So yes, it generally does behave more like a 200 speed film, except that it likes to loose highlight detail quicker than shadow detail. And I don't really enjoy the kentmere films that much, I'm not sure why, maybe it is the flatter look and/or the grain structure...never really got on with them. Of course, Tri-X is really good, and Double-X its slightly slower counterpart, but with pretty similar characteristics.
I’d be inclined to shoot the Foma/Arista at 250 next time. I’m not going to give up on it completely. I just need to find the right application and look. I did think the 100 speed version was a bit more palatable for me. But having such a variety of films and developers to choose from these days (even though it’s nothing like it used to be) is what keeps me motivated and inspired. I’ve seen the XX on the Ultrafine website. Looks like something new to play with. Thanks for the suggestion!
Do you develop your own negatives? Even though I own three 6x6 TLRs and two 35mm manual SLRs, on a very fixed budget I can't justify the price of film + development. Where I live the three rolls you shot if using Tri-X would cost about $30 (with tax) and development would be an additional $35 at a good lab, or about $2 per shot if driving cost included. If money was not an issue I would definitely prefer shooting film. Nonetheless, your videos are informative in many respects beyond the primary subjects. Thank you.
Thanks so much for watching! I do process and scan B&W film myself. I couldn’t afford to do it another way at this point. I don’t have a darkroom, but all I need is a film-changing bag to load the tanks. And as long as I clean up after myself, my wife continues to let me use the kitchen sink 😁. But even beyond that, shooting film these days is not an inexpensive hobby. That’s why I really wanted to investigate these budget-friendly film options.
How about using Xtol ? It performs, IMHO, excellent with ISO 400 film using a 1+1 dilution. Also, Ilford Delta 400 is one of my favorites and produces very fine grain results. Congratulate with your +1K subscribers. Well deserved.
i second XTOL at 1:1!
Delta 400 would be more in line with Kodak's TMax 400 tabular grain film. HP5 would be an ideal alternate/comparison for Tri-X.
I do need to try X-Tol. I’ve never heard anything bad about it. Great suggestions!
kentmere seems to follow the trend of Harman films of being flatter in general. it's more premium sibling HP5 is also very flat, which I appreciate as someone who likes to abuse their image in post
Yes, I certainly don’t mind having to boost contrast in editing. Preferable to the alternative of too much.
could you please do a similar video on color? still learning a lot about which film roll is good for desired outcomes / if they capture the same contrast as the BW photos.
I've been thinking about doing that - specifically between the Kodak Gold 200 and Kodak Portra 160. So, it's on my list. Thanks for the suggestion!
@@vintagecameradigest oh yes! that would be great. Kodak is becoming my go to brand. thanks for reading my comment!
I’ve never gotten along with Kentmere. I’ve always been disappointed with it. I shot a lot of Arista and overall it was good for cheap film but I love Tri-X. Unfortunately the price of Tri-X is what pushed me to HP5 and I’ve grown to love it.
The first roll of Kentmere 120 I shot impressed me with the tonal range. But the grain is a killer for the 400 speed version. It’s also noticeably grainier than its counterparts in the 100 speed range, as well. I’m going to try a different developer to see if that helps one way or another. That also happened to be the last 120 roll of Tri-X I had. So I’m going to be giving HP5 a try for a few weeks.
Can you do a video on your metering process? And why do you take multiple shots of the same subject with the same settings?
I have a metering video in the works, since others have also asked about it. So it’s on the way. As for multiple shots of the same subject - I didn’t realize I did that in this particular video (other than changing the film backs for the different films to compare). But in any other case there are a couple of reasons why I might do that. 1) to tweak focus a bit or vary it due to depth of field options; or 2) adjust camera position slightly to achieve a different framing. I will almost certainly do these things when shooting a long 35mm roll.
I love Tri-X for 400, FP4 for 100-ish, Delta 3200 for high speed.
I really need to get more familiar with Ilford’s non-Delta products. I’ve shot a good amount of Delta over the last several years, but never any of the 3200. However, I did shoot a lot of the TMax 3200 back in the day. I’d like to do more shooting with FP4 because I think I’d really like it.
@@vintagecameradigest FP4 is kind of the Tri-X for 100-ish speed. Ilford got it just right, and it is more likeable than HP5.
Primarily shoot hp5. Lots of room for editing in post since it delivers great detail in the shadows and mid tones. Very forgiving film stock. I’ve shot tri-X before and enjoy it a great deal as well.
Yes, I need to give HP5 a serious try. Now that I’m out of all my Tri-X, seems like a good time to stock up on some.
Isn’t Kentmere 400 basically Hp5? Same company too?
Same parent company (Harman) but not the same film. I’ve heard it has less silver in the emulsion, hence the lower prices.
Yes, it is.
That sums it up nicely, I think.
May years ago, I switched from Kodak B & W to Agfa APX Professional. Its got smooth, even grain and quite good contrast. I understand that Agfa is no longer in business so another company is continuing the product.
I used to really enjoy Agfa 25!
@@vintagecameradigest Freestyle in Hollywood is a great place to find hard to find film.
I can’t recall if I’ve bought film from there lately, but I do get chemistry there every so often. I need to see what they’ve got. UltrafineOnline is a good place to find odd film, as well.
Well here in Denmark, TRI-X is more than double the price of Kentmere, so yeah.. Not worth it for me.
(For 120 film I'd pay 7.2$ for Kentmere and 15.8$ for TRI-X)
I agree that Tri-X would be hard to justify at that price difference. How does Ilford HP5 compare? In any case, I’m thankful to Harman for Kentmere 120 film and supporting us film shooters with good film at good prices.
@@vintagecameradigest yeah. Hp5 is definitely more reasonable here in Europe. I'd pay 11.5$ for that. It's still hard to beat Kentmere. I agree and it performs really well for the price so I shoot it almost exclusively now :)
I picked up some of the 35mm K100 in a 100’ roll to bulk load. I’m about halfway through it. It’s not bad at all.
Yes Tri-X is better but! The curling, a monster that keeps me away! Thinner and crappier compared to Old Tri-X. Good test!
Thanks for tuning in!
i have only compared it to HP5+ and APX100 and 400 and for 135 it is undoubtably higher contrast and less grainy
It’s been a while since I’ve shot any HP5, but since that was my last roll of Tri-X, I’ll be ordering some to try out. My guess is that I’ll like it.
@@vintagecameradigest i feel like there is a very drastic difference between HP5 in 120 and 135, 135 is a *lot* lower contrast so i got into the habit of pushing it, Tri-X feels very similar in contrast compared to pushed HP5
I have also noticed a few films that seem to be different in their 120 and 35mm versions - Kentmere being one of them. Or maybe it’s all in my head (which is a rather likely possibility). Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll look forward to exploring new films!
triX is a legendary film. some of your results could be compensated for by processing, if you got used to a particular film
Yes, I expect so. I’ve got a good bit of Kentmere left, so I’ll be tweaking the process for sure!
Any chance you can provide content on developing the film for those of us who have never done that?
That could be interesting. I do my developing in the kitchen, so you don’t need a darkroom to do this part, at least. I’ll mull that over. Thanks for the suggestion!
I think Kentmere from my experience is just pretty much a 560-800 ISO film, not a 400 film
Interesting…what is your preferred developer for it? The results I was getting with rating it at box speed were quite dense negatives - at least for 120 size. I’ve not shot any of the K400 in 35mm.
@@vintagecameradigest Yeah your negatives being super dense also supports it being a 560-800 ISO film. I have used rodinal and D76, and got similar results. I also did stand development several times in D76 1:3 agitation at start and at 30 minutes then end at 1 hour: the 800 came out best again. Usually whatever frames look best in generic stand development are the ones the film is native at, since the process does nothing to account for pushing or pulling.
Makes perfect sense. I think the same goes for the 100 speed version. Negs were dense on that too.
Did I miss the development method and chemistry?
I think I mentioned it, but if not it was all D-76 1:1. And probably agitation at 1 min intervals, if I remember correctly.
Kentmere looks WAY easier to print. Arista claims to be Foma.
Yes, I do believe it’s Foma. I’d love the opportunity to do some traditional printing with Kentmere. Would definitely be interesting!
I did analog photography for several decades, I have tried many films, the Kodak TMAX400 is much better than Tri.X and other films !
T-Max 400 is an excellent film. I’ve probably shot more of it than any other film. It’s been a while since I’ve shot any, though. I do have a 5pack of 120 waiting on just the right moment.
There’s a reason they make both grain types.
I agree.
Better thaan what?
Than the two films pictured with it: Arista 400 and Kentmere 400
You're fortunate that the police didn't question you and want ID because you're shooing pictures near the Carrollton pick up truck.
So far, so good on not getting interrogated! A student in my photo class was not as lucky recently. He was taking photos around one of the federal buildings in his town and got questioned. Of course he shared it with the class for the “places I’ve learned which are illegal to photograph” portion. I’ll probably give him extra credit for his trouble, lol.