Plus-X vs Tri-Xgreenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread
I know Plus-X will deliver finer grain and may be a better outdoor film, but is it worth bothering with over Tri-X as a portrait film, even if I could get enough light off my tungsten photo floods? GA
-- Greg Augustine (email@example.com), April 22, 1999
Both films are very good for portraits, IMHO. They have somewhat different looks even apart from grain differences, but either should be okay. If you're doing small enlargements (5x7s), using a medium format camera, or have limited lighting, Tri-X is the way to go. If you're making 8x10s or larger from 35mm negatives, Plus-X may be a better a choice. (Also consider Agfapan APX 100 - it has finer grain than PX and yields a unique "glow" on Caucasian skintones that's very lovely. I haven't used APX 400, but I think the consensus is that TX is a better choice at that speed. And then there are Ilford's old- tech films, FP4 Plus  and HP5 Plus , which are also excellent...)
Heck, you can do nice portraits on T-Max or Delta films too: it's more a matter of lighting, subject, background, camera/lens, developer, paper, etc., than film, although I personally prefer the look of old-tech films for portraits...
-- Michael Goldfarb (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 22, 1999.