Tri-X vx Tmax film...which is better?

Which is the better black and white film as far as grain, contrast, and sharpness?

It's been a while since I shot and processed b

This is very subjective which is better. some will say T-Max others will say another brand. Basically it depends a lot on the situation such as subject matter, lighting conditions, etc. What I recommend is take a roll of each and shoot it experiment you will soon decide what works best for you and the types of photo's you shoot.

I have seen great prints from about every type of B

They aren't better or worse to me, just a little different. I prefer Tri-X but I'm an old bastard. I think there is a little less contrast in T-Max and the grain structure is different. If you use grain as a tool go with TX, if not try the T-Max. I think Tri-X pushes better and I am a big fan of D-76 and Acufine but as I said, I'm an old bastard.

Rick H.

Grain: T-Max 100.
Contrast: Depends on the developer and the printing paper.
Sharpness: Apparent sharpness (acutance), Tri-X. Actual sharpness (definition), T-Max 100.

I have not seen the curves on the newer Tri-X, but the older one got its midtone seperation by having quite an S-shaped characteristic curve.
This did not suit everyone. I only used Tri when I really needed the speed. I have never seen a curve on T-max. I am gone from the job where
Kodak would regularly supply me with that kind of stuff.

I find it odd when people complain about one B

Why Kodak? Many people buy Ilford film for black and white, and Fuji Film for color.

Haven't I read that Sebastian Salgado sometimes uses TMY, or, is it the 3200 film?

Until Tri-X Pan was recently reformulated, the answer was clear:

T-Max 400 is finer-grained and sharper.

Contrast depends on development. However, Tri-X tends to give you more midtone separation.

Tri-X Pan has recently been reformulated and there are unconfirmed, scattered reports that it is a great deal closer to T-Max 400 in its characteristics than it used to be. I don't know whether to believe this.

Those are beautiful shots Adrian.
What combo did you use for this one?
<http://www.amenfoto.com/gallery/portraitsbw/ portuguese_festa_1989.html>

I like the smoothness and tonal range.

TMY works great with a condenser in my business, which is a lot of BW
Headshots in open shade, there is good tonal separation and I totally disagree with this gradient comment about the film. TX wouldn't cut it, grain wise. As to using TMY in the studio, I strongly disagree with this also. You don't need the faster speed under studio strobes and PX or Pan-F are much better choices. I do not believe Kodak designed TMY for studio use.

The comments by mikescarpitti are in directly contradictory to what I've seen with TMY.

They both suck. Buy a digital camera.

That seems to be the fashion around here, lately. Make an overly broad statement, and brook no argument.

Without further qualification, it's a difficult question to answer.

The problem is that thre's a great deal of difference between their characteristic curves, and their intended use is different. T-Max is really a pro film, intended for stuio use. Its characteristic curve is such that contrast increases with density, and its maximum density is quite high. Tri-X, on the other hand, is precisely the opposite:
contrast decterases with density, and its maximum density is quite low, at least compared to TMY.

Most outdoor photos include the sky, which is of course a light source. Light from the sky enters the lens and creates flare in the lens that lowers the separation of the shadow areas (meaning the thinner parts of the negative). Tri-X has greater contrast in the shadow areas, which tends to help offset this flare. The lower contrast that Tri-X has in the highlight areas helps keep the sky or any highlight area) from blocking up.

Today, I generally use Ilford Delta 400 rather than Tri-X or T-Max
400. It's finer grained than Tri-X and has a similar characteristic curve.

So, even though T-max 400 is finer-grained, if you use it in an uncontrolled lighting situation you're going to be cursing the daylights out of it....

Thanks for your nice comments. I used TMAX and TMAX developer for that.

On 8/18/03 5:23 PM, in article
T-Max was developed especially for enhanced grain structure, Go for that!

You're just TOO damn funny!!!
Good shit!!!
Hot Damm!
How DO you come up with such clever stuff?!?
Wern't you on "American Idol"???
MAN, I wish I could come up with material like that!!!
Sheer Fucking Astounding Brilliance...

I've run both films through my digital camera, and got nothing each time. They won't even download! They both suck.

For my needs D76 is superior with TMY. I did first use Tmax developer with
TMX nd TMY, experimenting with 1:4; 1:7

T-Max really requires TMax developer, much lower contrast, increases the latitude, but T-Max's latitude is on the underexposure side while TriX is on the overexposure. Both are good films, my choice is T-Max, much less grain than
TriX. TMax 100 is a winner, can't even use a grain focuser in the darkroom with this film.

Personally, my B

Damn! So that's what's wrong with some of my TMY shots. I thought I was having an exposure or scanning problem. Maybe I'll switch back to
TX.

Doesn't mean a whit what insult you hurl at him. He is, in fact, on

It's been real. I guess.
I'll make a full report to Dad.

Tmax has finer grain and great sharpness but Tri-X has a much nicer tonal scale, the only film I really use for B

Don't forget the lower speed Plus-X and its Ilford equivalent, FP4, both of which are nicer than the ISO 400 films.

Agreed about TMY an TX but Tmax developer also kills the high end clipping that you get with D-76 and TMY and the moony faces in stobe shots that was illuded to in an earlier post. (D-76 is the developer of choice with TX) I really haven't seen a sharpness difference though I have to admit I didn't do that much testing. I was so bummed about TMY in D-76 I went right over to Tmax developer. There were also OSHA questions about mixing powders in a new darkroom the company I was working for was building. That was years ago.

I had done some TMY in Xtol 1:1. Its certainly finer grained then D76; but, I thought it not quite as sharp. It may have more useable film speeed, about
1/6 to 1/3 of a stop. Problem I had with Xtol was that it became the Voodoo
Developer From Hell. It was just not give consistent results and I"m pretty careful. I think going back in old posts at rec.photo.darkroom you will see more comments and complaints about Xtol inconsistency then all other developers put together.

That is a blanket statement -- are you claiming NO Kodak film has ANY advantages over its nearest competitor in the Ilford line?

What about Agfa's recent announcement that they're getting out of B