Talk:Kodak Tri-X

So I while I'm not going to argue that "Tri-X 400 is usually rated at ISO 400 when processed in standard developers" (presumably D76, but I'm a Fujifilm guy myself), I don't quite get the "and remains among the fastest black and white films today" bit. Fuji Presto, Kodak's C-41 process BW400CN, and various others are all 400 as well. However Fuji's Super Presto (ISO 1600) and Kodak's T-MAX 3200 are two and three stops faster, respectively, using their recommended processing.

In short: ISO 400 was fast in 1970. It isn't in the 2000s. So I'm deleting that phrase. However, if you can make a good argument for it (or want to qualify it), go ahead and do so, with a comment here explaining my misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.249.238.158 (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No argument here. Reub2000 (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Go

TMZ (T-Max 3200) is available in 35mm only, no Fuji film over 400 speed is available over sizes of 35mm, Neopan 1600 for example was 35mm only (apart from Pro 800Z but thats colour, and looks like it might be discontinued unfortunately - even Neopan 400 in 120 is now gone), Delta 3200 is available in 120/220 which is a 1000 speed pushable film. Delta 3200, T-Max 400, Tri-X 400 etc are the fastest above 35mm, all have been used with good results at 3200, and some people even push to 6400.

So I'm restoring the phrase.

Athiril (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Athiril

Shouldn't we mention the discontinuation of 120 and 220 format TXP? Why are they left out of the list for 320 speed Tri-X? I sadly may be that this page will be the reference for what was, and so it should include the history of available formats. 24.60.1.34 (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

documentary journalism and documentary photography
The article states "Since the advent of digital photography, Tri-X has all but fallen out of use in newspaper journalism, though it remains popular in documentary journalism." I Of-course this is unsourced. I am not familiar with documentary journalism and instead suggest documentary photography, where I believe Tri-X still has its enthusiasts, though perhaps not enough to warrant claiming it "remains popular". Jc3s5h disagreed, saying ""Documentary journalism" may not be a great phrase, but I have an idea of what it means. The sort of thing you would find in a monthly magazine. "Documentary photography" is not a phrase I'm familiar with; it could mean almost anything other than art and fiction.". Fortunately we have an encyclopedia to hand, which has an article on Documentary photography. I would still like to replace documentary journalism and documentary photography, if not update this sentence more thoroughly if there are sources with which to do so. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Documentary photography has sources, but unfortunately, the relevant on-line source doesn't work and I do not have the off-line sources. I note that this on-line article seems to include news under the umbrella of documentary photography. I also think it's highly questionable that Tri-X still has widespread application in this field (if we can even figure out what "documentary photography" is). Jc3s5h (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)