Deep in my fridge, I have 30-40 rolls of Tri-X that I bought a few years ago from B&H. Some cassettes are in clear canisters and some are in opaque black canisters.

I assume the canister difference reflects where the film was manufactured. Is that right? And does anyone know the locations?

Thanx!

I would think Rochester for both.
Pass them on to your children.
I had to do a retro shot and paid 30 bucks for an aluminum Kodak oldie.

I hate to admit it but I remember that in the 1950's tri-x became available in 35mm. As usual my photographer friends all thought it would never survive because it was too grainy. Everyone I knew was then using Plus-X and Panatomic-X at that time.
Microdol developer began to change people attitude toward Tri-X.

One of my old school favorites.

Love Tri-X. Lovely tonal range. The black canisters are the older ones.

Are you sure that it's not 400 and 320 asa? Or was that just available in 120 rolls? I used to love Tri-X rated at 200.

ah....the much misunderstood and less forgiving T-max film, which was a god-send back in the old PJ days and night sports.

crappy results when sloppily processed the same as tri-x and using D76 instead of the tmax developer.

I preferred Agfa b&w film developed in Rodinal over any of the Kodak offerings.

Tony,

www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.jhtml

www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/bw/triX2.jhtml

I used to shoot 35mm at 200 ASA too and process it in one shot D-76 1:1 8 minutes 68�. The grain looked like 100 ASA film. But I was always more into Ilford FP4 processed in ID-11 1:1.

I just saw a B&W Lightjet print on Ilford fiber base paper at Weldon Color Lab and it was beautiful. So no more film needed to make traditional prints. Just a file and you're good to go.

www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=61&t=Photographic+Papers+Digital

www.ilfordphoto.com/pressroom/article.asp?n=75

Never liked the characteristics of Tri-X, prefered HP5 a lot more, developed in Microphen, owiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiih

I was a big fan of Tri-X developed in Rodinal.
There was never a problem critically focusing when printing with that film/developer combo. Big, beatiful grain. I think I rated the sheet film @ 160 and the roll film @ 250.

Tri-X with Microdol 1:3. Long wet time, but great look. Pushed with Accufine... great grain. Plus-X Pro 120 in Microdol 1:3 was gorgeous. I still have my tank of Microdol. Can't bear to dump it. Local/recently deceased, teacher/artist Peter Feresten...

http://www.afterimagegallery.com/feresten.htm
http://feresten.com/soulofourcity.html

had the oldest tank of Microdol. His developemnt times were about a half hour. Check his tonality.

Now instead of my feet hurting and my fingers stinking, my butt goes to sleep and my eyes get strained. I always thought The Eagles were singing about the strain on a relationship and darkroom widows when they sang...

"Look at us baby, up all night
Tearing our love apart
Aren't we the same two people who live
through years in the dark? "

Now we need a song about large format Epson widows.

Ah yes,

I'm definitely in the rated @ 200 ASA camp.

I remember having my 120 backs marked w/ different
exposure values for out door stuff. I'd switch 'em out based what the light readings were. It looked great and the closest thing to the zone system that I could get on a roll camera.

TRI-X, developed in D-76 which was replenished and only got good with time, something about the replenisher adding "acutance" to the mix. Good enougn for Penn and Avedon as I understand. Hear that the latest version of it was nothing compared to the original. Pretty much the only BW film I used back in the day.

Oh, this is bringing college and my early career back with a sudden pristine rush. I used Microdol for my finer art, and for pushing to 1600 and beyond we used Diafine and Crone-C. Anybody else remember those?

http://www.photoslave.com/misc/diafine.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/249339-REG/BKA_CR..._Film_Developer.html