Exploring Tri-X: 70 Years of Film Magic, Fresh vs Expired (1983)

[@NeverfStop]

Have you ever shot the original Tri-X? I'd love to hear about your experience. If you want to see the comparison photos yourself checkout my instagram post.

[@randallstewart1224]

I shoot a lot of Tri-X and Plus-X in from 1960 to 1965, nothing else. After collage, I started using Plus-x again in the early 1970s. Later, I shot more Tri-X. The inherent characteristic of Tri-X I recall is a sense of flatness, lower contrast, which made it less suitable for my landscape work with 35mm. In the early 1980s, I got serious about about analyzing my B&W film performance with various developers. In the end, I shifted to HP-5+ and never went back to Kodak B&W films. Relative thereto, modern Tri-x has a flat, low contrast in low density exposures, leaving flat muddy shadows with little tome differentiation and high contrast highlights. Hp-5+, by comparison, has a steady, even tonal separation from bottom to top, being more predictable and easier to print in a darkroom. Also, Ilford marketing has always favored HP-5+ and is less costly, and it supports bulk film sales, which Kodak killed years ago to wring more cash out of its customers.

[@NeverfStop]

Thanks for sharing your experience!

[@jamesjuranke]

Thanks for sharing! What a find this film! Thanks for sharing the story about it.

[@NeverfStop]

@@jamesjuranke Thanks for watching, glad you enjoyed it!

[@scenicroutetravelers3655]

I am enjoying your channel and I don't own a camera. I do have a Lumix G7 in my cart though. Anyway I enjoy your style and presentation. I almost feel like we are in a smoking room enjoying a scotch and just having a nice chat about our passions. I did subscribe because your particular way of teaching will help me when I do make my purchase. Thank you.

[@NeverfStop]

@@scenicroutetravelers3655 Thank you for taking the time to share this! I can’t tell you how glad I am to hear my videos feel like a relaxed conversation. I hope you enjoy your new camera, it should be a ton of fun. Thanks again for subscribing, happy to have you along for the ride.

[@carterhiett]

Awesome video! I've never shot the original Tri X (my parents were also in high school when this stuff expired) I would love the opportunity to give it a try. Thanks so much for sharing!

[@NeverfStop]

Thank you! glad you enjoyed the video.

[@ik7960]

Thank you algorithm for this video. Would love to try TriX Pan!

[@NeverfStop]

@@ik7960 Glad the algorithm brought you here. Keep an eye out for when I revisit discontinued Kodak films for the give away.

[@mswgh5343]

Nice video! Do you know the storage conditions they were under? I just got a few rolls of TXP from 1983 that were apparently frozen until July 2024. From what I read and researched, I was quite surprised to see you go down to 50-100 ISO. I read that a single stop of exposure (from 400 to 200) might be enough for a film that was frozen for 40 years. Also, you didn't mention you experienced any fog...perhaps the HC-110 helped?

[@NeverfStop]

I don't know the storage conditions for certain. I got the film from someone who went to an estate sale. He said it was inside someones darkroom. So I'm guessing room temp, which might be why it worked a lot better at 50-100 instead of 200. If yours was actually frozen I'm sure they have held up a lot better to age. Also if you have TXP and not TX its 320 ISO and might have held up a little better. As for base fog, there definitely was some. But it honestly was minor. The negatives looked gray instead of clear. Very noticeable compared to new film but still very transparent. I didn't try any other developers so its hard to say how much the HC-110 helped. But, I suspect it was a factor and that's one of the main reasons I chose HC-110. I'm sure you'll get images shooting one stop over and you can always adjust a little for the next roll. Anyway, glad you liked the video and good luck with your Tri-X!

[@mswgh5343]

​@@NeverfStop Thanks for the info. I'm going to use HC-110 also. I forgot to mention - I enjoyed the history, the pics and comparisons - keep up the good work!

[@tedcrosby9361]

TriX is 70 years old in name only. They should have done the same as Ilford and Fuji, and changed the name . Photographers would have appreciated this

[@NeverfStop]

That’s a great point! It would really help photographers out. Something kind of interesting I’ve found since I released this video was a Kodak ad for Tri-X in a Graflex book released in 1944 making it at least 80 years old by name. Although it did say it was available in sheets only at that time.

[@koobs4549]

I have a 1930’s Eastman Kodak Rainbow Hawkeye No 2, Model 8, I’d love to shoot a roll of this in it.