Can We Recreate CLASSIC Tri-X? Conclusion With Sample Images Part 3

[@erichstocker8358]

This was a great series even if one has no interest in replicating Tri-X. I never cared for Tri-X much although I used a lot of it when I did photojournalism. However, I always preferred panatomic-X or plus-X. When time allowed I worshiped Tech-Pan. When TMAX 400 was released, this became my preferred film until Kodak priced it out of range. I then shifted to Delta-400. But---the series had so much great information on metering, matching look and developer, etc. It also brought to light all the great metering approaches available for run and shoot situations. Just a really great overall look at BW shooting, metering, developing and analyzing. Really appreciative of your efforts.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Thank you!

[@RoryChapman]

Great series. I shoot Foma 400 at 1600 and stand develop in Caffenol CL and, for me, that's the results i want and like. Fomapan is criminally underrated in the film world, especially as a portrait stock. I prefer Kodak XX, but like you said, it's just that little bit more pricy so I stick with Foma 400 as my everyday and all my street work.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Love Caffenol and Caffenol CL- did many posts years ago on why it is such a great developer- actually probably a decade plus ago 😂-- was at RIT when it came to life --

[@RoryChapman]

@@FIGITALREVOLUTION can you post a link? I'd love to see what your thoughts were.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

I actually own Caffenol.com 😂 figitalrevolution.com/category/caffenol-c/

[@douwekrooshof881]

Hi! Where can I find a recipe for F.R.U.D. and some developing times? I'd love to use this. Great work on the video series, there isn't so much content for folks who aren't beginners

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

I will do a new video on it this week- it was part of another video a year ago but will make a separate on with the formula and time.

[@douwekrooshof881]

@@FIGITALREVOLUTION that's amazing, much appreciated 👍🏻

[@davidgunalan7225]

@@FIGITALREVOLUTION Thanks. Looking forward to this..!

[@mikesebphoto]

Hey, wanted to add: I really appreciate your recent deeper dives into Fomapan films. I’ve fiddled with them a bit in the past but never really gave them the look they deserve. I think it was your stand-development series where you featured Fomapan 100. I shot some extremely contrasty scenes with that film and did DD-X stand development as you described - blew me away! Shadow detail was there, and highlights perfectly controlled. I also played a bit with Fomapan 400 in Diafine, and it sucked. Well, that’s because I shot it at EI 800, expecting the “usual” Diafine speed bump that didn’t materialize with this film, as you’ve subsequently showed here. Lesson learned. To have these excellent and affordable films is a terrific option.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Happy shooting!!!!!

[@erikhattrem8239]

Again, Frud! And yesterday the postman delivered me a pack of Fomapan 400:) The previous video inspired me to do my own testing:)

[@Wasnice7Wasnice]

Great work, thank you very much.

[@ronmorey3475]

Loving the FRUD!

[@robertwaffel8248]

Thanks for these thorough tests. I agree that the Foma400 looks close to tri-x. btw: One word rgd Foma 100: Developed in Adox XT3 (=XTOL) 1:3 + 2 mL/L Rodinal is my jam. Great tonality, accutance, punch, and almost no grain. Try it if you dare 😅. Cheers from Austria

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Thanks- I very well may give that a shot!

[@stratocactus]

Well I have everything in my home lab :) What dev time would you recommend as a base ?

[@robertwaffel8248]

@@stratocactus Here is my receipe (for 135 film): 1. Mix XT3 (80 mL) + Tap H20 (220) 2. Add 0.6 mL Rodinal and mix 3. Pre-rinse roll with 500 mL Tap H20 for 1 min (constant agitation) 4. Add developer and agitate for 1 min 5. Agitage every minute for 10 sec (4 full inversions) - total development time: 6:40 min at 26°C 6. Stopbath: 500 mL tap water for 1 min (constant agitation) 7. Add Adofix (1:7) and agitate constantly the 1st min, than every minute for 10 sec (4 full inversions) - total fixing time 6-7 min 8. wash vigorously with tap H20 for 2-3 min

[@SilntObsvr]

If spectral sensitivity is the main thing bothering you with Fomapan 400 vs. old Tri-X, you might try shooting with a filter suitable for daylight color film shot under tungsten light. Such a filter (which would normally shift the images toward blue) works by reducing yellow and moreso red. You'd need to compensate with a little extra exposure (probably 1/3 to 1/2 stop in daylight, 2/3 to 1 stop in tungsten light if you can still find any), but you'd get the color rendition of old Tri-X with available film (that incidentally costs half as much per roll, even less in sheet sizes, compared to 400TX or 320TXP). As I pointed out on one of the earlier videos, for my eye Fomapan 100 pushed to 400 in any of HC-110, Xtol, or D-23 using reduced agitation gives more of the Tri-X look than anything I've tried with Fomapan 400 -- but it's a matter of preference. And there's always HP5+ (though that doesn't save any money over 400TX and never really looked like Tri-X -- always smoother grain and a bit more contrast). BTW, if you shoot 35 mm and can handle rolling down 400 foot rolls to fit your 100 foot bulk loader, you can buy 400 feet of Double-X from cine suppliers for about the same price *per foot* as 400TX bulk rolls. Cinestill is the only source for Double-X in 120, however, and of course it's not made in sheet sizes. Still my favorite replacement for old Tri-X, though (and it's excellent in Df96 monobath as well).

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

I love XX- I actually tested it for CineStill and wrote an extensive article for Emulsive on it and Df96 when it was released- it is my favorite of the group for sure but more $$ of course. I don’t mind the look of the 400 and agree that the 100 is a crazy good film that pushed quite well- as does XX. I often shoot XX with a custom #44 filter so it brings out a more orthochromatic look- similar to what was used for the movie the Lighthouse with William Dafoe. Love the look and feel of that film. I tested the XX in 120 for CineStill and made a post on FR 1.0 on it-- figitalrevolution.com/2021/05/26/cinestill-bwxx-is-now-in-120/

[@lensman5762]

If my memory serves me correctly, the TXP was a different emulsion formulated to take advantage of controlled studio lighting, and was not as contrasty as the TX. The old Tri-X had a lot more silver in teh emulsion than the newer one which is actually a Hybrid emulsion. Lovely demonstration.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Yep- it also was easy to retouch the negatives with spotting dyes- did it once- way to stressful for me 😅

[@lensman5762]

@@FIGITALREVOLUTION I used to Selenium Tone the negs. 1+30 + Hypo Clearing agent @ 24C. Those days are long gone.

[@tedcrosby9361]

Your examples really make me want to order some TXP regardless of cost. Your testing shows how difficult it is to achieve a close match to the old TriX mainly because Fomapan 400 isn’t a true panchromatic film, and there appears to be no anti-halation backing which can make highlights glow. Of all your tests I like best the results from your FRUD developer. I never really got on with Fomapan 400 but I can see that it’s a great film for artistic expression, with the right exposure, and developer. Thanks for sharing.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Yeah the extra red sensitivity and lower AH coating definitely make it artists and vintage feeling but not exactly like TX-- Double X is probably the closest

[@pd1jdw630]

I’m going to try that TX in diafine. Cause I love that punch. Also I’m going to try that frud. Thank for sharing this journey. That fomapan in frud was really similar to the classic pictures.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Just remember to shoot the 400TX at EI 1000/ 1250 in Diafine due to the speed bump- lovely combination…

[@pd1jdw630]

@@FIGITALREVOLUTION thanks. I’m gonna love that.

[@iNerdier]

Got to admit I've never liked shooting tx400 and being young enough I never got to shoot the original tri-x, didn't realise they were two different stocks and it's wildly more expensive than Ilford or Foma here. I've also never really got on with Foma's films but this makes me want to try giving them another chance. Kind of surprised at your results honestly, I never found 400 to actually be a 400 speed film. Maybe it's time to try a box of TXP320 and see if it gives that crunch.

[@fourcornerseducation8828]

Have just spent the summer developing so HP5 and FP4 shot a minimum of 9 years ago one role actually 22 years ago next month - 12 rolls all in a box I had forgotten about with 6 different moves in that time - also because of moving I have not developed any film at all for at least 12 years - results in stock D-76 (Adox) were very interesting. Comparing to some negatives developed at the time the grain was certainly more pronounced but I also felt that the detail in the shadows was actually better and a bit more TX than HP - though leaving your film a decade possibly isn’t the best way to get consistent results - thanks for a great little series of videos

[@soulstart89]

Hey Steve, hope you are good. I’m using the reciprocity timer app to get corrected times for fomapan 100 I’ve noticed my negs just look underexposed. I looked on the fomapan data sheet and the advise just doesn’t seem right. I know you shoot long exposures a lot and fomapan so have you created your own reciprocity chart for all the fomapan films you use? This is a subject that hasn’t been done in video form which i REALLY think would be helpful as I’ve found fomapan falls of a cliff regarding reciprocity. Cheers bud

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Oh yeah Fomapan sucks for reciprocity- I usually take what is suggested and double it again if it is past say 10 seconds-

[@mikedatny]

I tried out F.R.U.D on two rolls of Foma 400 in 120 (shot E.I. ~200-250) at the same time on one reel in a Paterson tank for 30 minute stand...came out very thin with some uneven developing (edges were brighter). I'm wracking my brain trying to figure out what I did wrong - either this batch of Foma was bad, or...what's the minumum developer for this stand technique? I had 2.5mL HC110+2.5mL Rodinal with 625mL of water (I calculated this as a 1+125 dilution, which matches your dilution of 2mL + 2mL + 500mL suggestion). I wonder if this would have turned out properly if I had just developed a single roll of 120 instead of two. The only other thought I had was, I mixed the two developer concentrates to form the 5mL total developer before adding them to my water. Maybe that's a no-no and I should add each developer to the water seperately for a proper mixed solution?

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

It should have been 1 roll of 120 to the mix- two rolls would need more developer

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Also be sure to do the 5 minute pre wet

[@mynewcolour]

I think HP5 has a big toe … and doesn’t have the low green, high red sensitivity. Maybe that could get there? I agree Foma 100 is nice.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

HP5+ is nice and killer in 510 Pyro but like the 400TX it has a more modern feeling-

[@mamiyapress]

That image from France was beautiful and was the Crossed Arms another portrait of your wife ? but cropped!

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

No not cropped- a figure study I did a few years before we even met… thank you!

[@Thorpal]

Hello Steve, stupid question : is there a way to make Tri-X 320 look more like Tri-X 400? I love the 400 in 35mm and 120 with Tmax Dev but I can't help thinking that if 320 in 4x5 looks dull like that with both HC110, Xtol and even FX39 (because Tmax dev apparently produces Bromhyde drag with sheet films so I can't use my favorite developer) I'd rather save some money and start shooting HP5 (yuck).

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

It is a very different film- maybe a developer like Rodinal 1:50-

[@Thorpal]

@FIGITALREVOLUTION Won't Rodinal at 1+50 make it even more lackluster? I love the punch and the tones of the 400 version with Tmax Dev or even Xtol. Last time I tried Rodinal on the Tx 400 it was nice at 1+50, but far from what I use to get with Tmax Dev. Grainy as fuck though...

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

@ No Rodinal 1:50 will give it more punch and more visible grain but as it is LF it will be still be very well controlled.

[@mikesebphoto]

Steve, this has been an enjoyable and informative series. A lot to like here. Speaking of memory lane - I have one of those Pentax V spotmeters also, with the Zone VI modifications…remember those? You sent in your meter and they did some magic to it to make it better somehow, forget exactly what. I noticed that you have your name labeled on it with one of those old time labelers JUST LIKE I DID!!! Kinda janky and steampunk as labelers go, but I labeled everything with it. Thanks much friend.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Yeah, I’ve had that particular meter since 1993- just purchased a Zone VI modified one which I will share with students when teaching the Zone System - love a spot meter! Glad to see you here on FR 2.0- so many videos I want to make and share in the next few months!!!!!

[@OrelRussia]

I also don't like the contrasty look of modern BW film. Won't the pull process help to achieve those tone gradations?

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Maybe- a lot will depend on the film developer combo-

[@tedregas5099]

Could part of the difference between the two film's midtowns be in a difference in their spectral sensitivity?

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Yes! And the developer like Rodinal or FRUD are only going to add to feeling of the midtones.

[@michaeltaylor3835]

HP5+ is practically close to Tri-X when both are shot/processed under identical conditions. See an update report: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e4C1iWqQf7atbKs Lighting (huge!), filters, dev/processing, scanning/printing are the real image modifiers. Re HP5 / FP4, I simply like film stock that has a long production history, excellent / continuing manufacture, consistent high quality, huge range of sizes (35mm to 20x24" ULF), excellent support/knowledge, all at a decent price point. No links with Ilford - but after 45+ years of b&w I really appreciate them. Still there and going strong :)

[@chriscard6544]

320 TXP 50 sheets for 5x7: $430 and 4x5: 10 sheets $60 in my area When I scan with Epson v850, shadows (Zone II ) are not very good. same as in your video. So is it the film or the scan ? My favourite combo is Fomapan 100 + HC-110 1+31

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Yeah it is crazy $$$ at the moment- thank god I have some frozen 😄

[@chriscard6544]

@@FIGITALREVOLUTION your photograph from the 90's makes me want to order some.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

So Zone 2 should have no textural detail - that is zone 3 but in reality it is Zone 3.5- my zone 3 is solid with this film but remember it is the lowest value with full textural detail AND classic film with the exception of TXP would very quickly fall off - this is one big reason if I cared about having more I would either pre expose the film or overexpose by 1/2 stop… classic method.

[@chriscard6544]

@@FIGITALREVOLUTION actually the negative is OK. I guess I have issue after the scan when I edit the raw file.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Scan to the right and expand to the left to maximize bit depth- here is a video I did years ago-- will be a huge help - I hope 😃 kzbin.info/www/bejne/oouqeId5a9Kfn68si=Ug3H7MCj4Cln8LRj

[@erikhattrem8239]

Tried a few Foma400 in Frud. 2ml+2ml in 500ml water. Agitation 1 minute and 45 min stand. Not happy. Part of film looks foggy only a few frames came out usable.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

What EI were you going for?