Author Topic: Tri-X 60th Anniversary Approaching (Read 8329 times)

gothamtomato · « **on:** May 19, 2014, 09:55:16 PM »

I just read today that this November will mark the 60th birthday/anniversary of Kodak Tri-X. It seems like some sort of celebration should be in order.

hookstrapped · « **Reply #1 on:** May 19, 2014, 10:00:54 PM »

Yowza!

Francois · « **Reply #2 on:** May 19, 2014, 10:21:43 PM »

I wonder if Kodak will come out with some anniversary boxes?

tkmedia · « **Reply #3 on:** May 20, 2014, 05:36:19 AM »

did they do it for the 50th? I'm just happy that film is still available from them.

They could always do what agfa did a produce a tin.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29504544@N08/13919487880/

Late Developer · « **Reply #4 on:** May 20, 2014, 01:13:51 PM »

Here's a thought - "60th Anniversary of Kodak Tri-X" would make for a great collaboration theme - everyone has to shoot something "diamond" related (diamond jubilee / anniversary is 60th) using Tri-X in whatever format they prefer.

Francois · « **Reply #5 on:** May 20, 2014, 02:26:39 PM »

Quote from: tkmedia on May 20, 2014, 05:36:19 AM

did they do it for the 50th? I'm just happy that film is still available from them.

They could always do what agfa did a produce a tin.

I have a different one from Agfa somewhere in the lab. It was a nice thing, but I don't think Kodak has extra cash to produce knick knacks like that anymore.
I still have some Kodacolor piggy banks, keychains and such.

But just having special cardboard boxes with specially labeled canisters would be more than I could ask for nowadays.

02Pilot · « **Reply #6 on:** May 22, 2014, 01:45:48 PM »

It appears Kodak has decided to mark the anniversary by raising the price of 100' rolls, which have just gone up to $99.99 at the regular places. As much as I love Tri-X - and I do love it - it is increasingly hard to justify when Ilford's bulk offerings are now essentially half the price.

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #7 on:** June 03, 2014, 03:06:08 PM »

I haven't come across the writer before, but it's a pretty fine article on Tri-X ...

http://moreintelligentlife.co.uk/content/features/bryan-appleyard/tri-x-factor?page=full

Indofunk · « **Reply #8 on:** June 03, 2014, 03:26:13 PM »

Quote from: Late Developer on May 20, 2014, 01:13:51 PM

Here's a thought - "60th Anniversary of Kodak Tri-X" would make for a great collaboration theme - everyone has to shoot something "diamond" related (diamond jubilee / anniversary is 60th) using Tri-X in whatever format they prefer.

I celebrated the diamond anniversary by buying yet another "brick" of Tri-X. I'd definitely be into a diamond-themed collab

mickld · « **Reply #9 on:** June 03, 2014, 11:29:30 PM »

I've never actually tried Tri-X. I've tried the full range of Ilford films, Kodak TMAX 400, Rollie Retro, Agfa and even Efke. But not Tri-X. I keep going for TMAX as it seems to be the best bang for the buck.

Indofunk · « **Reply #10 on:** June 04, 2014, 12:46:55 AM »

I'm the same way with TMAX. I should really try some TMAX sometime...

hookstrapped · « **Reply #11 on:** June 04, 2014, 02:54:33 AM »

Quote from: Sandeha Lynch on June 03, 2014, 03:06:08 PM

I haven't come across the writer before, but it's a pretty fine article on Tri-X ...

http://moreintelligentlife.co.uk/content/features/bryan-appleyard/tri-x-factor?page=full

That was a very good read. Thanks!

SLVR · « **Reply #12 on:** June 04, 2014, 04:11:37 AM »

Quote from: 02Pilot on May 22, 2014, 01:45:48 PM

It appears Kodak has decided to mark the anniversary by raising the price of 100' rolls, which have just gone up to $99.99 at the regular places. As much as I love Tri-X - and I do love it - it is increasingly hard to justify when Ilford's bulk offerings are now essentially half the price.

This is where I'm at a loss. I havent had great experiences with HP5+ and have really enjoyed using tri-X. It sucks that the price was raised.

02Pilot · « **Reply #13 on:** June 04, 2014, 12:08:18 PM »

The price increase is baffling. It costs more to buy a bulk roll than to buy individual rolls now. I'm into my first few rolls of HP5+ now, and I while I still prefer Tri-X, I can't say that it is possible to justify the much higher price for general day-to-day use.

Francois · « **Reply #14 on:** June 04, 2014, 03:07:28 PM »

That's pretty much why I'm using some Arista 400 these days: it's cheap. It's actually re-packaged Foma. It's got a contrast curve similar to that of T-Max but with classic grain.
So far, I've only tried it at nominal speed but plan on trying some extreme push work to see how it handles.

tkmedia · « **Reply #15 on:** June 04, 2014, 07:15:05 PM »

Quote from: Francois on June 04, 2014, 03:07:28 PM

That's pretty much why I'm using some Arista 400 these days: it's cheap. It's actually re-packaged Foma.

Arista.edu Ultra, I didnt really like the older revision from a few years ago, but shot a 120 roll recently and seems improved. something I would shoot.

Francois · « **Reply #16 on:** June 04, 2014, 08:58:57 PM »

One thing I discovered is that it doesn't scan easily when processed using their recommendations. But it prints just fine.

02Pilot · « **Reply #17 on:** June 05, 2014, 12:05:24 PM »

I took it upon myself to reach out to Kodak Alaris' Product Line Business Manager for Film Capture, Thomas Mooney, for some explanation of the recent price jump in bulk Tri-X. He responded quickly and basically explained that unit marketing costs for bulk rolls have been driven higher by lower demand for that format, while demand for 36-exposure rolls remains high and is thus holding those costs more or less steady. So while I don't expect the bulk rolls to drop back down, it would seem at least that pre-rolled Tri-X prices may not experience a similar jump right now.

I was pleased that Mr. Mooney replied personally and with a viable explanation. If this can be taken as an indication of the new management team's approach to their customer base, I'm somewhat encouraged about the company's prospects.

Francois · « **Reply #18 on:** June 05, 2014, 01:53:23 PM »

Well, at least they were very clear on that. It's strangely refreshing when we get a straight answer from companies nowadays.

02Pilot · « **Reply #19 on:** June 05, 2014, 02:19:15 PM »

Even more refreshing is that he didn't just push my email off to the PR people so they could send me a canned reply. Straight word from the man in charge? I'll take it.

SLVR · « **Reply #20 on:** June 05, 2014, 02:32:49 PM »

Youd like to think though that its far less work to just make one big spool of film rather than 30-some-odd ones all in individual cassettes.

I don't think they should use the same business formula for bulk rolls as they do for 36exp cassettes. The point of a bulk roll is to be a more cost effective solution. By increasing the price of it almost 50% that totally undermines the concept of a bulk roll. Would anyone in their right mind go to a bulk food store and expect to pay more than the grocery store's individually packaged versions?

They say there's a drop in demand for bulk rolls. Well that may be in part to the fact that in a lot of these links and stories we are reading, people stocked up. Best bang for your buck was bulk. So people have all the bulk tri-X they should need for the next few years and don't have to demand it anymore from Kodak Alaris. For us poor saps that had faith they wouldn't kill off tri-X and didn't stock up, we get ding'd with the increase in cost.

What also erks me about kodak and a lot of the film suppliers is that it seems they automatically resort to price increases. Rather than downsizing or looking for cost cutting efficiencies. To be fair, I don't know everything about what kodak CEOs are doing or talking about behind closed doors.

I like bulk rolling. I like tri-X. I was considering getting a roll of tri-x for my next bulk roll but thats not going to happen now. And if others make the same decision as me according to the kodak alaris business formula we won't be seeing bulk tri-x as a consumer product in the near future.

end rant

02Pilot · « **Reply #21 on:** June 05, 2014, 05:46:11 PM »

Believe me, I'd have preferred to hear that bulk Tri-X was going to drop back down to the $69.95 it was at for a long time. I like bulk loading my film, and I like Tri-X. I don't know what the long-term plan is over at Kodak Alaris, but one can hope that cutting back on slow-selling bulk films is part of a carefully considered rationalization of production to create greater efficiency in their business. If it keeps the company viable, it makes sense from their point of view.

When I want Tri-X in 35mm, I guess I'll be buying it pre-rolled. When I want to bulk load, which is fairly often, I'll likely end up going to an Ilford product. If the Kodak Alaris market plan is correct, this approach shouldn't bother them at all.

Owlsflight · « **Reply #22 on:** June 06, 2014, 03:32:49 PM »

Quote from: Sandeha Lynch on June 03, 2014, 03:06:08 PM

I haven't come across the writer before, but it's a pretty fine article on Tri-X ...

http://moreintelligentlife.co.uk/content/features/bryan-appleyard/tri-x-factor?page=full

A very interesting article and thanks for sharing. I thought there was a lot of filler, and there was definitely an air of negativity on digital which I think is a silly argument. Overall I thought it was a great read though. I've only ever really shot a few rolls as I'm more of a Tmax shooter, but I completely understand the love.

Nigel · « **Reply #23 on:** June 06, 2014, 09:15:15 PM »

I have to admit I'm a real Tri-X fan. I keep going off and trying other films because I feel I ought to more than any dissatisfaction with Tri-X. I'm currently giving TMAX a run out for the first time, but I'm sure I'll be back to Tri-X once the TMAX is used.

I'd certainly be interested in taking part in a Tri-X themed collaboration or similar.

thatguychad · « **Reply #24 on:** August 13, 2014, 11:49:20 PM »

Without trying to start a holy war, what's everyone's favorite developer for Tri-X? I'm unimpressed with Rodinol (which I absolutely love for Neopan) and prefer my only other currently-mixed developer, Ilfosol 3. But, I'm putting in an order at Freestyle for 50 sheets of 4x5 and thought I'd check to see what you guys recommend for Tri-X.

SLVR · « **Reply #25 on:** August 14, 2014, 12:54:34 AM »

Xtol.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #26 on:** August 14, 2014, 06:26:59 AM »

I too noticed the high costs of kodak bulk film just recently when making a podcast about bulk loading. actually noone sells them here in sweden so I had to check a UK site.

asked kodak alaris through twitter about this. https://twitter.com/jonasx70/status/499785994498244608

Nigel · « **Reply #27 on:** August 14, 2014, 08:53:37 AM »

Quote from: thatguychad on August 13, 2014, 11:49:20 PM

Without trying to start a holy war, what's everyone's favorite developer for Tri-X? I'm unimpressed with Rodinol (which I absolutely love for Neopan) and prefer my only other currently-mixed developer, Ilfosol 3. But, I'm putting in an order at Freestyle for 50 sheets of 4x5 and thought I'd check to see what you guys recommend for Tri-X.

I've settled on HC-110. I really like the look. It also works for me, in as much as there's usually long gaps between when I get time to develop any film and HC-110 seems to last well.

Francois · « **Reply #28 on:** August 14, 2014, 03:24:52 PM »

Lets not forget that HC-110 was pretty much invented to process Tri-X as it was the staple of newspaper photographers for decades.
HC-110 gives good results, makes Tri-X very pushable and is mostly a fast developer. 5 minute development is not rare for me.

gsgary · « **Reply #29 on:** August 14, 2014, 04:50:08 PM »

Quote from: thatguychad on August 13, 2014, 11:49:20 PM

Without trying to start a holy war, what's everyone's favorite developer for Tri-X? I'm unimpressed with Rodinol (which I absolutely love for Neopan) and prefer my only other currently-mixed developer, Ilfosol 3. But, I'm putting in an order at Freestyle for 50 sheets of 4x5 and thought I'd check to see what you guys recommend for Tri-X.

This is 26 years out of date Tri-x with rodinal, 35mm

jharr · « **Reply #30 on:** August 14, 2014, 05:02:45 PM »

I love Rodinal and Caffenol with Tri-X, but I am a grainophile.

Love that photo Gary.

You know it's grainy when you can see it on 4x5!

Boris by James Harr's Photos, on Flickr

Indofunk · « **Reply #31 on:** August 14, 2014, 05:06:16 PM »

I've also settled on HC110, also for convenience reasons. Haven't tried pushing with it, but that's my next experiment.

thatguychad · « **Reply #32 on:** August 14, 2014, 06:00:32 PM »

Great, I think I'll pick up some HC110. XTOL was a bit of a turnoff because I'd have to make 5L at a time and I'm not ready to make that kind of commitment right now.

gsgary · « **Reply #33 on:** August 14, 2014, 06:03:49 PM »

Cheers jharr, here's one that is super grainy

astrobeck · « **Reply #34 on:** August 14, 2014, 10:32:20 PM »

Gary!

I like Tri-x in caffenol as well!!
I'm also a fan of T-max since it's what we all had bulk rolled at the newspaper.

jharr · « **Reply #35 on:** August 14, 2014, 10:57:36 PM »

Quote from: gsgary on August 14, 2014, 06:03:49 PM

Cheers jharr, here's one that is super grainy

That's grain to the grainth power!

SLVR · « **Reply #36 on:** August 14, 2014, 11:00:21 PM »

since were all posting examples, here's a great Xtol example.

Untitled by nownownownow, on Flickr

gsgary · « **Reply #37 on:** August 14, 2014, 11:03:08 PM »

That is good very good

02Pilot · « **Reply #38 on:** August 14, 2014, 11:16:51 PM »

Caffenol-C-H (RS) is my standard for Tri-X. I recently pushed a roll to 1600 semi-stand in C-L (75 min.) and was pleasantly surprised by the results - there was considerably less grain and more pleasantly graduated tones than HP5+ done the same way.

Indofunk · « **Reply #39 on:** August 15, 2014, 04:18:40 AM »

Quote from: gsgary on August 14, 2014, 11:03:08 PM

That is good very good

Yes, very nice

Author Topic: Tri-X 60th Anniversary Approaching (Read 8329 times)

Owlsflight