>>3865445Truth.
The 'effects' and grain of TX serves the same purpose to bad photographers as an Instagram filter: lipstick on a pig. And in fact, its coarse grain can actually hinder the visual language of a good photograph.
The trouble with TX is the extremely limited tonal range, even when exposed and developed for 200. The tonality it does have is striking, true. And it is flexible with pushing. But most modern film stocks can deal with fuckups in exposure quite well
>>3865504. I have frames of Neopan which are almost black and others which are so faint that they need a 5 filter to print. But they are almost all perfectly usable negs. Even TMX can still look decent with 2-3 stops of latitude. And HP5 has slightly nicer tones despite a similar formula.
TX is just hipster bait. I have no idea why it's considered standard when there's so much better out there.
