TRI X 400 Film

Hey guys, I'm new to this forum and also to film. I'm currently a student and I really want to improve my skills and just overall try to master Black and White. The thing is I want to take night pics but I'm not sure of the settings, I have a Cannon EOS XS. Another question I have is where can we buy cheap Tri X 400. Each roll cost the same as a gallon of gas and it hurts everytime I shoot and it comes out bad or gets ruined.

I live in NYC.
If you guys are in the neighborhood you might want to check out the Chelsea Antique Fleamarket on the weekends on 6th Ave around 15th or 16th street. I've got some cool stuff from there.

Thanks
Dan...

Hey Dan,

Welcome to the forum. Try googling "Law of Recipriocity" (spelling) before you start shooting B&W at night. I learnt this one out the hard way.

I instead used Kodak BW400CN, which allows an exposure time of 2 minutes before that law comes into play. Have a look in my gallery for some shots taken at night in BW400CN. I have also taken some in Ilford HP5 Plus. The difference between the two of them is noticeable.

Any more questions, just ask

I am sure you can find Tri-X at B&H, check there.
Welcome!
Brian

Buy expired B&W film off of e-bay. B&W has an incredable shelf life. Even expired film works well.

thanks guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg McCary

Buy expired B&W film off of e-bay. B&W has an incredable shelf life. Even expired film works well.

---

+1 though you could be hard pressed to find Tri-X for cheap even expired on Ebay. You'll save a little but, not much. If you're not set on Tri-X, I would consider giving Ilford HP5 a shot. this usually goes for a bit cheaper on Ebay. I recently picked up about 40 rolls in 120 for about $1.10 a roll, just barely out of date. Another option would be to start buying 100' rolls and loading your own reels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xia_Ke

Another option would be to start buying 100' rolls and loading your own reels.

---

Tri-X is wonderful stuff. This could be a really good option - keep in mind that 36 exposures is only about 4.5' of film, so 100' should give you about 18-20 rolls including the leaders on both ends. Buy some re-loadable cassettes and a used loader; maybe you already have the changing bag you'll need too.

Nobody can tell you what settings to use - it all varies depending on the situation and what kind of result you want. If you're doing something like a cityscape I'd probably use a spot meter and manual settings. Here's how I use the spot meter. Film does get expensive and many times I've thrown out entire rolls of slide film because nothing worked. A good goal would be to get one really nice shot or learn something from each roll of film.

If you search around the 'net you'll find a lot of people speculating that Arista Premium 400 is actually rebranded Tri-X. If it's not the same, it's at least close enough that a bunch of film fanatics are developing it side by side with TriX and seeing no obvious differences. It's available through Freestyle for half the price of Tri-X. Might be worth a try.

I have not done any bulk loading, but I think that's your best bet if you really want to pinch every penny. It also can be advantageous when you're learning to develop, because you can make short rolls for testing exposure and development times, or even for practicing the Zone System.

Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xia_Ke

+1 though you could be hard pressed to find Tri-X for cheap even expired on Ebay. You'll save a little but, not much. If you're not set on Tri-X, I would consider giving Ilford HP5 a shot. this usually goes for a bit cheaper on Ebay. I recently picked up about 40 rolls in 120 for about $1.10 a roll, just barely out of date. Another option would be to start buying 100' rolls and loading your own reels.

---

I have to agree here with Aaron. I have shot several rolls of HP5. The grain seems finer than that of TriX and also gives you that 50's look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by photophorous

It's available through Freestyle for half the price of Tri-X.

---

Paul, I don't mean to pick on you but if films like Tri-X are to stay around, they need to be (financially) supported. Sure, I'm a big fan of getting a bargain and Tri-X would likely be the last b&w for Kodak to discontinue but the market really isn't getting any bigger. I know saying stuff like this really isn't what everyone in the Film forum wants to hear, but that's how Kodak pays their bills. I would imagine they'll make Tri-X as long as it's profitable - but no longer.

I meant to comment on reciprocity failure before - and yes, it's important to understand this. True silver-halide b&w films like Tri-X are usually fairly bad at this but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the film; simply it'll need more exposure. The film data sheet on the inside of the box (or at Kodak's website) will tell you how much based on your shutter speed. C41 b&w films aren't true b&w but they do scan very well. Since that's how most C41 is printed, chances are it was designed with this in mind. I loved the old T400CN but it looked nothing like Tri-X.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg McCary

I have to agree here with Aaron. I have shot several rolls of HP5. The grain seems finer than that of TriX and also gives you that 50's look.

---

Efke is supposed to have an "old school" look to it as well. The manufacturing process hasn't changed for decades. HP5 is the other film I shoot with. I've been told by some that some of my shots look like they were taken in the 1940's-50's.

At the end of the day, try as many films as you can, with as many developers as you can, and post the results in the folder Xia Ke has set up.

One thing you may want to think about if you buy the film in bulk and roll your own. When I shoot with my Elan 7n, the camera will only let me shoot 36 exposures and then it rewinds automatically. So when I roll my own film, if I have more than 36 exposures on it, they get wasted. When shooting with my AE-1 it's not a problem because I can keep shooting until the entire roll is gone. If your camera is the same way, unless you''re really careful when it comes to rolling your own film, you may end up wasting some film. Again, this may or may not be a big deal to you, but it's something I would keep in mind considering that price seems to be an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by another view

Paul, I don't mean to pick on you but if films like Tri-X are to stay around, they need to be (financially) supported. Sure, I'm a big fan of getting a bargain and Tri-X would likely be the last b&w for Kodak to discontinue but the market really isn't getting any bigger. I know saying stuff like this really isn't what everyone in the Film forum wants to hear, but that's how Kodak pays their bills. I would imagine they'll make Tri-X as long as it's profitable - but no longer....

---

I hear you, Steve. Tri-X is my go to film, although I shoot some Fuji and Ilford too. But, I don't think there's anything wrong with throwing a little support to a place like Freestyle either. If the speculation about Arista Premium being rebranded Tri-X is true, then both Kodak and Freestyle are making money on the deal. If it's not, the stuff is still made in the USA and helping to keep Freestyle going. I'll keep using Tri-X, even if Arista is half the price, but if Dan is looking to get into B&W and doesn't have a lot of money to spend, buying Arista is better than not buying any film at all.

All this talk makes me want to go out and shoot, but I'm stuck at work. Doh!

Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by photophorous

If you search around the 'net you'll find a lot of people speculating that Arista Premium 400 is actually rebranded Tri-X. If it's not the same, it's at least close enough that a bunch of film fanatics are developing it side by side with TriX and seeing no obvious differences. It's available through Freestyle for half the price of Tri-X. Might be worth a try.

---

I have to concur with photophorous that Arista Premium 400 (Not Ultra and not the Premium 100) is basically Tri-X with some minor quality issues. I use it when I am on a budget and have been more then satisfied on every occasion. :thumbsup:

I don't have anything of substance to add, but I just wanted to say I appreciated this discussion on different B&Ws as I do plan to shoot some after Fall is over. B&W seems appropriate for Winter (and criminal in Fall).

When I was a student in the USM photo school I used to take tons of night shots. Choke down to the smallest apature that you have on your lense. (i.e. f22) I used to allow 5 to 10 minutes of exposue time. However, if you run the camera in Apature priority mode, you can let the camera decide the best time.

Below are two examples of the later method. I set my D50 with 28mm lense to f22, and allowed the camera to determine the proper exposure. This is a digital simulation, but film results will simular.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...aphy/night.jpg

Here's what it should look like with your b/w film.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...hy/nightbw.jpg

The longer that you keep the shutter open, the more defined the "stars" will become. Keep a small notebool with you and experiment with different exposure times. That way when you are looking at your contact sheets, you can determine which time works best for you individal shoot style. Above all, have fun! I used to love driving all over the city looking for interesting night scenes. Bring a friend, as this can get boring by yourself.

:thumbsup:

By the way, the above photos are just ment to be examples of the technique... I do not claim that they are interesting by any means... just the first thing I saw when walking out of my front door to try to capture something tio show as an example. :)