A couple points on the TMax 400 / Tri-X question.
First, a great deal of confusion arises because Kodak has chosen to use
the name "Tri-X" to label two totally different emulsions. 35mm Tri-X
(the same emulsion is available in 120) has a very long scale with an
enormous, extended smooth shoulder. With proper exposure and development
it can be used in wide-ranging light conditions, from very flat to very
contrasty, and deliver negatives that print beautifully all at the same
negative development, often with only small changes in paper contrast
during enlarging. This is why it remains a favorite of
photojournalists/documentarians working in b&w. If you are shooting live
action with four Leicas, each mounting a different lens, you don't want
to hear about developing your film individually for separate lighting
scales.
Kodak (surely at the instigation of a sadistic product manager) also
sells "Professional Tri-X" in both 120 and sheet sizes, and it is a
radically different film with an exceptionally long straight line and
almost no shoulder at all. It can give superb results, but can handle
varied lighting only with a full set of Zone-style developments (N-3 to
N+3) for silver printing. Anyone used to the adaptability of 35mm Tri-X
tends to hate the sheet film on sight. However, it's simply splendid for
Pt/Pd printing, where the very long straight line and lack of shoulder
are a benefit. Which brings us to TMax 400, which is really very similar
to Professional Tri-X, but with less grain, higher true speed, and
superb reciprocity characteristics. It too is a wonderful film for Pt/Pd
printing, and can yield excellent negatives for silver printing if
again, a full set of plus and minus developments is worked out to fit it
to the very narrow tolerances it has for subject tonal scale (the direct
result of the long straight line with almost no shoulder).
So, a particular kind of "forgiveness" of 35mm Tri-X has nothing to do
with sloppy technique per se, but the inherent characteristic of the
film curve, with its ability to deliver over a wide range of lighting
situations with a single development. For reportorial shooting in
freewheeling circumstances, I wouldn't want to use either TMax 400, or
the "pro" version of Tri-X because they are ill-suited to the task. When
I shoot reportorial 35mm, I want Tri-X. When I shoot with my 8x10, I
want _the other_ Tri-X, or TMax 400, for negatives intended for Pt/Pd.
Using the 8x10 and intending to print in silver, I *wish* the emulsion
of 35mm Tri-X were available in sheet film....Ilford HP5+ is a good
substitute.
---Carl