Did Kodak Ruin Tri-X? | T.O.C. Xtra Episode 12

[@lloydgarland4667]

Kodak Tri-X - the film I was brought up on. My uncle used to use it and he was my teacher. I remember the days of D76 in sealed metal cans and Tri-X film in aluminium tins. It was an outstanding film, nothing else in 400 ASA even came close. For decades there was no need to change, it was excellent in everyday situations and in low light there was nothing to touch it. Then came T-Max! That stuff changed my world, even though it needed twice the time in the fixer . How things have changed now, Tri-X is stupidly expensive and in my honest opinion, not worth the asking price. T-Max has gone the same way, although with T-Max you do get a slightly better product, the cost of it is just too much. Now I'm using ORWO UN54 and Kentmere 400 to mess about with and Ilford Delta 400 and FP4 "If it matters". Process the lot in Ilford ID-11 and I'm happy with it. I just don't understand why Kodak have priced themselves out of the market (for me, at least). I can't be alone, there must be other people who just refuse to pay the prices Kodak are asking! If Ilford or ORWO start making decent colour film, it'll be the end for Kodak

[@andrewwilliams4072]

I have to agree with you…. Kodak is way to expensive in Australia. So much so I usually import from overseas when I need it. The only reasonably priced film range in Australia anymore via official channels is Ilford….and now my go to brand. Fuji….they are no bodies now…. Although Tmax is still reasonably priced and available here….and I don’t mind tmax. But tri x is getting too expensive…. Leaving me to move almost entirely to Ilford and allowing me to shoot more film for less money. If ORWO becomes available and reasonably priced here I will definitely try and support them.

[@yetanotherbassdude]

Part of the price hikes are likely just profiteering from Kodak's owners seeing the film photography boom and subsequent jump in vintage camera prices. Someone willing to pay over a grand for a Contax point and shoot probably won't care that the film is $12 instead of $6, even if you and I absolutely do! That said, the Smarter Every Day YT channel recently started a video series touring Kodak's main plant in Rochester, NY that was really eye-opening for me. The sheer scale and sophistication of what Kodak are doing there is staggering, especially in a state that's still notoriously expensive to live in. The whole thing was clearly built for the scale of production needed for when film was the only option and Kodak were a much bigger company, so keeping it running with a much smaller market, even one seeing recent growth, is inevitably going to mean higher prices to keep it afloat. Based on that video, I'd also reckon that if Kodak had to shut it all down, it's unlikely that anyone else could take its place even if there was demand for it. The differences in scale and sophistication between Kodak and a manufacturer like Ilford just seemed enormous. There's also the 70+ years of colour film manufacturing knowledge and R&D that Kodak's current staff are the direct inheritors of that would be almost impossible to replicate elsewhere without an enormous amount of investment that would likely make any other manufacturer's colour films even more expensive than Kodak's. With Fuji pretty blatantly sunsetting their entire film division in the long run, if Kodak ever dies, they're very likely taking C41 colour film with them, along with a huge breadth of B&W options too. It still sucks, and I miss the days of getting Kodak Gold for £3 a roll, but I'll still buy some Kodak with my Ilford film stocks to do my bit to keep them in business, as I really don't think we as film photographers can afford not to.

[@stefanriegel9099]

Well done Azriel, I love this kind of content.

[@RobertLeeAtYT]

Oh man, I honestly don’t understand all the tmax hate. For me, TMY2 is the true pinnacle of B&W film, particularly when developed in Xtol at 1;1. This is especially so in small format, i.e. 135, where getting decent tonality and resolution is a challenge. An almost indistinguishable replacement for classical Tri-X is HP5. Soup that in HC-110. You’ll get the same sand-in-your-eyes grain as the old Kodak stuff.

[@garricksl]

HP5 is the best mid-tier b&w. FreeStyle has generic film in stock for students and penny-counting crowd.

[@belgocanuck123]

100% agree. Tmax is my favourite 400 speed film, in FX39 at box or pushed in DDX.

[@garricksl]

@@belgocanuck123 do you try cheaper Delta pro 400? I outsource development of all films

[@Thorpal]

With film it's like nobody really experience things by themselves now. Because of prices mostly, but also by sheer laziness. People seem to dislike the Tmax line often without having really tried it. Like people will opt for Hp5 over Tri-X because they've heard a gazillons times that it's better to have a flatter film "because you can always add contrast in post if you want" 🙄 And then they complain b&w is dull and cry at Kodak's C41 high prices. Sure Tmax 400 needs the good developer. But with it you can push it to 3200 and it will be less grainy than Tri-X, and way cheaper than the dedicated Tmax 3200. At that iso you just need to think of it like a slide and not mess your exposure!

[@yetanotherbassdude]

I have to confess I've never actually tried Tri-X myself, as here in the UK it's nearly twice the price of HP5 (my usual go-to 35mm B&W) and so many people like you have also said the same as you that the two are so similar, but I do think I really need to try it now just to compare. I would love to have tried the old formula, but I'd still take the new one over another discontinued film stock any day!

[@randallstewart175]

Starting around 1960, my life in photography was build on Kodak films. I mainly shot landscape on 35mm, because that's what I could afford. So, sharpness and fine grain were the prime characteristics I sought. This meant mainly Panatomic-X and Plus-X, but Tri-X slipped in there sometimes. My primary Kodak films were discontinued over time, so I moved over to Ilford about the time HP-5+ was introduced as an upgrade to HP-4, and thereafter used FP--4 and HP-5. I missed the horsing around with the formulation of Tri-X which came along later. When TMax 100/400 came along, I gave them a try, but I found it difficult to dial them in with the developer I was using, and I still think them to be relatively unresponsive to development controls, so I remain solidly in the Ilford camp. If I was starting now, I'd not use Kodak products, because I do not think the company is stable enough, at least as to its film related products, and what it offers no longer presents any advantage over other products. (Exception: if Gold 200 is out in 120 rolls as rumored, I'll probably restock my film freezer if it has any price advantage.)

[@melaninxhalide1165]

I don’t know about that last quote you used. Tri-X, especially in 135, is plenty grainy and looks nothing like any other B&W film on the market today. People love comparing HP5 & FP4 to Tri-X, but those films don’t look anything like it including the grain structure. I love it in 120 because it dries so flat, but unfortunately I can’t shoot it in 135 cause it curls so bad. I’ve been bulk rolling Kentmere 400 though which has a classic grain structure to it and thus a similar feel to Tri-X in 135 and I have been loving that.

[@RobertLeeAtYT]

Have you tried souping HP-5 in HC-110? This is a high acutance but low resolution developer. It was popular with the newspaper guys. I last used Tri-X and HP-5 fifteen years ago, so it was definitely the old stuff (both in HC-110). These two were almost indistinguishable, including grain structure. I scan with a pair of Nikon Coolscans so the details are definitely there.

[@richardsimms251]

Very well done video. Thank you. RS. Canada

[@jamesjacocks6221]

I’ve used the classic Tri-X (still have the negatives and prints) and since the output was 20 X 20 prints from 120 film there was plenty of crystalline grain. For most commercial applications this wasn’t best practice, grainless images being the standard. It was very good with portraits and a few other uses where grainless wasn’t wanted or needed. When it was available, Panatomic X did give perceptible grain in a 20 square print but I loved the film processed in Beutler’s. Your presentation was fair and thoughtful.

[@trinityharbour7054]

Great video. Would like to a see a side by side comparison of well preserved old school Tri-X

[@berkeleygang1834]

I remember there was an ISO/ASA 320 Tri-X only available in 120 (along with ISO/ASA 400 Tri-X). IIRC, this was supposed to more "portrait friendly." Perhaps lower accuity? Things like the Zeiss "Softar" and Mamiya 150/4 "Soft Focus" lens were popular with portrait photographers.

[@doyoudevelop]

Fun fact: the letter "K" was often used in English advertising because of it's way it would stand out, as it was a letter that wasn't common in the English language, .. many brands adopted that, like "Kraft Foods" or "Kool-Aid" or "Kellogs" .. One thing that is horrific about the new TRI-X is that you essentially need to underexpose your negatives to get a contact sheet on which you can actually read the writing of the film and frames. And the writing is grey, it used to be white and and much thicker. Money is being saved at every corner with Kodak .. it's a real shame. HP5 just outperforms in this manner and will probably stand the test of time.

[@MKBPresents]

The first roll of 35mm film that I ever shot back in 1968 was Tri-x and I was very impressed with the "look" of the images. However, subsequent rolls in differing lighting conditions and subject matter didn't suit me as the grain just seemed to overwhelm. As a result, I switched to Plus-X and that was a film that I could really work with. Sadly, it is gone. Tri-x had its place in street photography and journalism for sure and the look was spectacular. I used to work as a chemist for Dupont Photo Products and the deal back then was the price of silver. It could make or break profitability. I can see why Kodak wanted to cut back on silver content. As for the price of film lately, if you look at historical prices of film and apply the cost of those films in today's dollars, they aren't too far off. So so called budget films like Kentmere 400 are a real bargain. I find that KM 400 has everything that I want in a 400 speed film and it seems like a cross between the old Tri-x and the old Plus-X. The negatives come out flat too. I suspect that the prices today are lower is due to advances in automation which then cuts back on the need for employee costs. Things weren't all that automated back in the 60s. Plants also had several layers of management to have enough of a manpower buffer should there be a strike.

[@JeffWernerIthacaNY]

Oh my gosh last year I developed a roll of Tri-x and when I pulled the negs out of the fixer THEY WERE PINK! PINK!!! Nooo! I had to recheck five times to make sure that it wasn't T-Max and maybe when I read the label I was having a stroke or something. The pink negatives are a new problem over the past two or three years.

[@AzrielKnight]

yeah, the pink is the telltale sign the silver has been replaced by dyes....sad day.

[@chriscottrill5181]

Love your channel and this type of informative and entertaining video.

[@patrickjclarke]

Good content and information! I remember the big "T-Grain" hate when T-max came out. I actually like T-max okay, but what do I know, I love Portra BW 400 (BW400CN) and XP2. :P

[@garricksl]

Delta 100 is a nice alternative. XP2 is so fake for me.

[@patrickjclarke]

@@garricksl what do you mean by “fake”?

[@garricksl]

@@patrickjclarke I can't see the grain easily. Some professors/artists hate C-41 and old-timers love E-6!

[@patrickjclarke]

@@garricksl Gotcha, yeah, the "no grain" is a reason I like it...reminds me of Polaroid type 55 negs. I also love that you can shoot ISO 50-800 on the same roll and get great results. I'm just glad we still have some options!

[@garricksl]

@@patrickjclarke Art school is a nice place to learn, but you are right - you are the end-user in the real world. I love the old fashion film with some grain. Sometimes, I use HP5 because the grain size is big. I love Delta Pro as the best high speed film series.

[@owainshaw]

I first heard about this in Salgado's autobiography. He used Tri-X for pretty much everything until Genesis which is when he switched to digital. The reformulation of Tri-X was one of his reasons for doing so. Using the same film he had always used, he wasn't getting the results he wanted. I also missed the boat on original Tri-X, and wanted to like it when I did get back into film a few years ago. Pushed to 1600 I got some of the character I was expecting from all the historical work I'd seen but at 400 I was pretty underwhelmed, especially for its current price tag, and HP5 became my go to.

[@JonnyRobbie]

Does HP5 have the same issue?

[@TZerot0]

The entire photography department in my school switched to hp5 years ago. Kodak film basically doesn't get touched anymore

[@haroldishoy2113]

I tried the T-Max 1000 film when it came out and was not impressed. I continued to shoot BnW TriX and 100 PlusX films and 100 speed C-41 when I wanted prints. Just like the uproar caused when Coca Cola changed their recipe, the whole world was knocked off its axis for a time, when it was brought back, long time Coca Cola drinkers swore it wasn’t the same. Old Tri-X isn’t the same but there are few people around now that are able to compare.

[@PhilTaylorPhotog]

Hi Azriel, came back to the comments section to ask if you've ever done any processing with Cinestill Monobath? The vague documentation and mixed reviews I've seen make me skeptical of the control level available, but if it could be tamed, it might be perfect for me as I travel overseas a lot, and could dev at a hotel. If you haven't, I'd love to see you do some very logical Azriel style testing...I'm sure you could add it to a mile long list of requests.

[@lugentaubner6853]

Very illuminating video! 🙏

[@mariofazioli7534]

Loved your take on Tri X film, if it is fact that its not the same as in the past, which in your opinion, would come the closest to it in another brand, thanks. CANADA

[@AzrielKnight]

Honestly, not sure yet, will have to look into it!

[@_guillermo]

I love this content

[@garricksl]

Secondly, the supply chain mess is making film prices skyrocket. I love T-grain because it is easier to use in Photoshop to clean up the image.

[@garricksl]

Tri-x is the budget B&W film. I will buy Ilford because Kodak corporate is unstable and the company(Delta and HP 4) is making adequate stock during COVID-19 crisis. Ilford still stuffs the channel while FujiFilm wants to abandon film and focus on healthcare. I really like Rollei E-6 film and the gold standard for me.

[@goldenhourkodak]

How is it a budget film though? It's more expensive then every Ilford film and more then T-Max too. I think it's the most expensive popular B&W film out there aside from Acros.

[@garricksl]

@@goldenhourkodak Oh shit. The last time I bought Tri-X was years ago. Kodak pension fund boardroom make Kodak film most expensive and crappy quality. Sorry! I use mostly old stockpile film because of COVID19 problem

[@garricksl]

@@goldenhourkodak Kodak film is outrageously expensive; Tri-X was used to be one of the cheaper ones - Astra is cheapest; Delta Pro is overall good and Kodak is a scam.

[@goldenhourkodak]

@@garricksl This is why I shoot 95% Ilford when it comes to B&W

[@garricksl]

@@goldenhourkodak Thank you for looking out for fellow film users

[@Otokichi786]

What has "The Ghost of Rochester" done now? Flattened Tri-X Pan? Oh well, Freestyle Sales Company has alternative films available.

[@rpdee7344]

3/21/22 KODAK got the name from the sound the shutter made when tripping the shutter, Kodak. I preferred Ilford film over Kodak Tri-X films, in the late 60's and early 70s I used Kodak Plus X ASA 125, Tri X ASA 400, plus like you, I preferred Ilford films in both 135mm and 120mm. Tri X was great for sports shooting indoors or out, plus with a Honeywell strobe flash unit you could use small f-stops for great depth of field.

[@AzrielKnight]

Interesting. Never heard that before. Source?

[@rpdee7344]

@@AzrielKnight A VIDEO I SAW ON THE HISTORY OF kODAK

[@briansavage932]

So, what would you say is the closest modern film to tri-x?

[@AzrielKnight]

Honestly Brian, I'm not sure. I'd have to research whatever has the highest silver content.

[@SinaFarhat]

Interesting! Thanks for sharing!

[@borderlands6606]

The history of film has been less of it, for more money. Snapshooters moved from 6 x 9 box cameras, to 126, to 110. Kodak's change of Tri-X was also commercial.

[@marcp.1752]

I still love Tri-X aka TX400 Kodak. One could even push it up to ASA/ISO 1600, 3200...or higher. Tri-X does have a specific look, since the 50's, and many iconic images have been made with Tri-X over the decades. Other b/w fave films are HP5+, XP2 Super, seldom CMS 20, or Acros.

[@AzrielKnight]

Thanks for the comment Marc. I read a book recently I highly recommend, The Film Developing Cookbook. It'll change your life. It also says it's pretty useless to push new tri-x to 3200 but HP5+ does a good job.

[@marcp.1752]

@@AzrielKnight Hmm, ok. I've used sometimes Tri-X/TX400 pushed @1600 ISO. HP5+ is great! Therefore i mentioned it with the other films.

[@fretlessfender]

Tri-x has stability problems also... as a professional developer I see a lot of it. And it hasn't been the same. I hope Kodak will clean up their act as soon as they have their production issues sorted.... Losing Tri-x this way is unrespectful...

[@yetanotherbassdude]

Really interesting and I didn't realise that Kodak had changed Tri-X so much. Even so, I like what other photographers are doing with the new formula so I definitely feel I need to give it a go. I'd also definitely be up for you doing a follow-up video to this with some practical side-by-side testing if you can track down a roll of the old formula that's been kept frozen since before Kodak changed things. You could also take a look at some other film stocks that have gone through formula changes too perhaps, either from Kodak or Fujifilm?

[@ArthurJS123]

Personally, I think the best thing to do is evaluate today’s, readily available TriX, on its own merits. The reason being, the “old” stuff isn’t coming back. If they were to “add” silver, they would have more lawsuits on their hands, from consumers and medical agencies and regulatory boards, than they could ever keep up with. Personally, I think today’s TriX is a spectacular film, and still the best looking black and while film available today. It’s beautiful, and flexible.

[@AzrielKnight]

Why would they have lawsuits from adding silver?

[@ArthurJS123]

@@AzrielKnight it’s a dangerous substance, at least,considered so here in the states.

[@talleyrand9442]

@@ArthurJS123 huh? Never heard that people were filing lawsuits over silver content! Do you have any examples, please? Lol

[@AzrielKnight]

You sure you're not thinking of lead?

[@ArthurJS123]

@@AzrielKnight no. Silver is extremely dangerous if absorbed into the bloodstream or organs.

[@s2zvidz]

Curious to know where you got the Steve Anchell quote from?

[@AzrielKnight]

The Film Developing Cookbook

[@s2zvidz]

​@@AzrielKnight Thanks. I notice however you cite the Darkroom Cookbook in the video. I am flipping though both his excellent books in an effort to find this quote. I will get back †o you when I find it. I'd be curious too, to know how many people out there in KZbin land who would even know who Steve Anchell is, and why his opinion matters. It does for me. But I shoot medium format and large format film and stopped using Tri-x when T-max hit the market. I started with Microdol-X as my developer of choice, moved to D25, and now use Xtol and a 2 bath development method. So gutsy grain and contrast are the furthest things from my mind when I process my film.

[@AzrielKnight]

Sorry, it was TDRCB, page 38

[@MrRom92DAW]

I can’t say I understand the Tmax hate. People really weren’t thrilled with it when it came out? I guess I’ve only ever shot the “new” stuff but I find tri-x to be fairly unexceptional and tmax to have the most distinctive look.

[@AzrielKnight]

I mean, to each their own. I don't mind TMax either.

[@erichstocker8358]

Did not like Tri-X ever. Always seemed like it had grain the size of boulders. I have always preferred the TMAX stock. TMAX 100 and 400 are my basic films. I shoot others at times but I prefer TMAX. I never shoot Tri-X. There are a lot of reasons that film stocks have to change not the least of which is that companies are not "not for profit" organizations and that new anti-contamination regulations often require change or like Fuji just an abandonment of film. Acros II is probably Ilford anyway. The Tri-X mystique is a lot of BS

[@CalumetVideo]

Thanks for the video! Thanks for the insight to one of my longest held questions. I remember as a kid seeing my dads work with Kodak Tri-X, it had a distinctive look. I tried to achieve this in my photos as a teen in the late eighties and early 90’s with little success. I asked him and he said that he thinks they changed the formula and probably not as much silver. I still use Tri-X but think there is definitely a difference in the pre-1980’s Tri-X.

[@massmike11]

I liked tri-x but my favorite will always be plusx

[@AzrielKnight]

I hear good things. I think i have some in the fridge...

[@edwardcrosby5034]

It maybe technically a better film than the old TriX, but It won’t push as well, and I can’t get the gritty look I’m after which was a characteristic of the old film. It really should be renamed, and so should Agfa APX 100. Photographers should know what emulsion they are shooting !

[@fretlessfender]

Agfa apx films are made in the UK according to the cassette... who... could... that... be????

[@GregoryVeizades]

If you want old Agfa APX 100, look into Rollei RPX 100 and the other RPX films.

[@edwardcrosby5034]

@@GregoryVeizades Thank you, that’s really good to know.

[@Socrates...]

Great video

[@jacovanlith5082]

Kodak Tri-X 135 - 36 during the Vietnam war. Exposed by AP photographers at 200 ASA and UPI photographers at 400 ASA. Prints made of 2.40 x 3.60 m by Worlp Press Photo journalist Kiyoichi Sawada.

[@andrewwilliams4072]

What I don’t get is how Ilford had a price rise that was a fraction of the kodaks TWO prices rises in last 12mths. Yet….first price rise was about improvement in production and supply issues….yet it didn’t improve- I don’t know about your country - but Australia has had little stock and certainly at decent prices. Yet….Ilford is usually always available and in regular stock…. Hence why I have moved away from Kodak….and sadly triX My last bulk purchase of Ilford film meant I spent 40% less than if I bought tri x…. I would rather shoot 40% more film As for grain….contrast…. I have just adjusted my tastes and process around Ilford ranges FP/HP or delta’s.

[@garricksl]

Kodak is run by pension fund managers. Ilford is run by experience leaders.

[@tonyzhu403]

Quad-X for the future?

[@JohnKrill]

Well shoot I guess it’s time to sell my film equipment. There are plenty of rookies that shoot only color film so let them buy my over priced equipment. With my profits I will go to Paris.

[@tomislavmiletic_]

Back in the day Tri-X was quite unavailable for me. But I had a chance to jump on a Ilford HP5 wagon and stayed there. And that was 35 years ago..

[@garricksl]

Good for your wallet.

[@ccoppola82]

Exactly why I won’t pay premium for Tri x. Do you happen to know of XX is altered from the original formulation? I’ve heard it has not changed.

[@neilpiper9889]

Kodak ruined Trix in the 1980s and discontinued my favourite darkroom paper, Kodak Bromesko, a Chlorobromide to die for. And Kodachrome gone. I still love Kodak though.

[@erome5903]

i find hp5 very alike the old tri x

[@AzrielKnight]

I'm enjoying it more and more.

[@TucsonAnalogWorkshop]

The funny thing is the 2005-07 manufacturing reboot that changed Tri-X for the worse simultaneously brought huge improvements to TMAX 400 (not so for Tmax 100 unfortunately). I started with Tri-X and TMAX in the late 80s, and everything you said about the microcontrast of TMAX *was* true at that time (which is why I quickly abandoned TMAX back then). Maybe I'm a slow learner, but fast forward to today and it has taken me 10+ years of being ever more disappointed with Tri-X to give TMAX 400 a second chance. Now it is my favorite 400 B/W--I suggest you give it a try if you haven't already--it's an unrecognized gem of a film, and possibly my favorite 400 speed B/W of all time (next to Neopan 400...;)

[@marcp.1752]

T-Max does look too "digital" for my taste...somehow.

[@AzrielKnight]

You say that like it's a bad thing :)

[@marcp.1752]

@@AzrielKnight Well, if it does look "digital", i can simply shoot much cheaper my X-Trans based E1, E2 & T1, no need for Film into that case :)

[@-fragile-]

your head is a bit overexposed

[@AzrielKnight]

Hah...see what you did there...

[@JonnyEnglish-gu1cs]

I was always in the Tri- X corner I just bought some more sad to hear they butchered it and water it down Kodak please stop fiddling we like it as it was

[@AzrielKnight]

It's like the bud light of film now....sad.

[@davidcollins1853]

HP5 plus is great film. I prefer it over Kodak

[@garricksl]

Kodak is trashed!