I’ve been trying, dare I say testing Tri-X recently. Tri-X has famously been around for decades, although it has undergone a couple of changes to it’s formulation over the years, so the Tri-X of 1954, is not the Tri-X we buy today. I’d be surprised in a bad way if it was! I’ve written before that generally I’m not a fast/grainy film kind of guy. My tendency is to stick with slower, and therefore less grainy films. Good old FP4+ would frankly cover 95% of what I photograph with no problem. There are times however when it’s both useful to shake up the tool kit a bit and sometimes you just need that speed. To that end I purchased a couple of rolls of 35mm and a 5 pack of 120.
To be clear when I say testing, I mean how I get on with it, Kodak or Tri-X have more than proved themselves over the years and need no comment from me! So it’s more testing me using it! All these images are 35mm. I developed them in “Barry Thornton Two Bath” developer, 5 minutes in each bath at 20 degrees C. They were all shot at box speed of 400 iso. I’m rather pleased with the results. I’ve had to make virtually no corrections to get results that I like.
I have used a roll or two before, (you can read about that here) but not much, it’s not a stock I know well. Typically I’d reach for HP5 but I have to say I think I may slowly be getting converted, especially as the winter months grow nearer. Although I will expose a roll of HP5 and develop in the same developer, to make a more direct comparison. Tri-X, looking at the cheapest source is about 10% more cost here in the UK, not a huge jump – I’m looking forward to trying some 120 soon! I especially like the image below of the sunflowers with the wheel barrow wheel!
S.H.O.U.T. 
Lovely work. I mainly use HP5+ for a faster film but have a particular (nostalgic) fondness for TriX which I used in the 1970/80s. FP4+ pushes surprisingly well too in my experience
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Dave, I’ve written before that I tend to go for finer/slower films – FP4 being a firm favourite, and I’ve treated that exactly as HP5, exposed and developed as if it were HP5 and it was great! If I’m truthful I’m currently reading Koudelka’s biography so I’m probably being enthused by contrast/dark/grain at the moment! My memory “pang” is being aged 13 with my Zenith 11, and opening a new Kodak Ektachrome! Anyway more to the point, HP5 is very close to Tri-X but often a much better price, so no doubt in due course, I’ll revert back to HP5! – Cheers Andy
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice pictures, Andy.
I tend to use HP5+ over Tri-X, though mostly as it’s been considerably cheaper (although, as you note, that gap seems to be closing). I do like Tri-X though, particularly in 120 format, so I’ll look forward to see how you find it with medium format.
I get good results using my go-to Ilfotec DD-X, but I do find that Tri-X can coil like a spring when it’s out of the dev tank – especially older, expired rolls!
All the best. Nige.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Nige – I suppose we are blessed in the UK with having Ilford. The “holy trinity” of PanF, FP4 and HP5, add on Delta – what else do we need! When I’ve felt I need 400 iso I’ve always reached for HP5 – I think I can see a bit more mid tone shading in Tri-X, but in truth it’s a tiny difference. As you say HP5 is cheaper, and has less “air miles” too! Ohh and yes – coiled spring is the ideal description for my last 35mm roll!! 🙂 Cheers Andy
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like Tri-X fine but I find that HP5+ lies flatter in the scanner.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Jim! That’s very true, certainly this roll of Tri-X was springing about all over the place! Best – Andy
LikeLike