320TXP in HC-110 - processing time?

Doc W

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
955
Location
Ottawa, Cana
Format
Large Format
Can anyone tell me the correct development time for Tri-X 120 film (320TXP)? I find the Kodak/Alaris data sheet a little confusing.

http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/f4017_TriX.pdf

There are several tables of development times.
The first table is for 400TX

Next is a heading for "Tray and Large-Tank Processing-Sheets
Right under this is a table for "TRI-X 320 / 320TXP - Sheets"
This appears to be a table for processing sheets in a tray.

Next we have the table "TRI-X 320 / 320TXP- Sheets"
This has times for processing sheets in a large tank or large tank with gaseous bursts.

After that is a section on rotary-tube processing and then a section on development in Xtol.

I want to develop 320TXP (120 format) in HC-110 in an inversion tank but I can't find the time in this document. What am I missing? Do I need more coffee?
 

Kodachromeguy

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
2,056
Location
Olympia, Washington
Format
Multi Format
Hi Doc, maybe I can help. I have notes from when I used Tri-X 320 in 120 size, but I ran out of this film several years ago.
  • Tri-X 320 Professional, expose at EI=200 or 250.
  • HC-110 dilution B. 5:00 or 5:30 for Rolleiflex negatives, 4:30 or 5:00 for Fuji GW690II negatives (the latter has a more contrasty lens). Temp: 68 deg. F.
  • Stainless steel tank, 1 or 2 reels. Pre-soak in 68 deg. F in distilled water about 1 minute.
  • Pour developer into the tank quickly and start the timer. Invert and agitate for the first 30 sec, then 2 or 3 inversions every 30 sec. Start to pour out about 15 sec before the timer is set to buzz.
  • Then stop bath and fix the normal way.
Let us know how it works out for you. (The example below is from Milies, Greece, taken in 1994.) Cheers,
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,098
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
OP
OP

Doc W

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
955
Location
Ottawa, Cana
Format
Large Format
Thanks for the quick reply, folks!

kodachromeguy: NICE photo! I had forgot how good Tri-X looks in the right hands.
 

richyd

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
203
Location
London UK
Format
Medium Format
This is very confusing. I have just purchased some 4x5 film packs pf Tri-X 320, expired 1981, and the recommended development times published in the enclosed informtion sheet (revised 7-78) is 8 mins with HC110 dilution B at 20 C and 7 mins in D76; times for tray processing with continuous agitation. What could have changed so much over time?
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,106
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
The film. Your 1981 tri-x is a different product from today's.
 

Kodachromeguy

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
2,056
Location
Olympia, Washington
Format
Multi Format
Mr. koraks above is correct, the 1981 emulsion may have been different than the 120-size version of Tri-X Professional from the early 2000s. Some other thoughts:
1. Kodak probably recommended exposing at EI=320. I usually overexposed at EI=250 or 200.
2. I underdeveloped a bit to reduce contrast.
3. 4x5 recommendations may have been different than the 120 recommendations.
4. My negatives may be thinner that what the Kodak chemists preferred.

Update: the photo above was from a then-unused narrow gauge train station in Milies, Greece. It was from a Rolleiflex 3.5E camera with Xenotar lens. I recently read that the train has been revived as a tourist attraction with steam locomotives. Now I need to return.....
 

Doremus Scudder

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2002
Messages
3,596
Location
Eugene, Oregon
Format
4x5 Format
To throw another wrench into the gearbox here: When Kodak re-formulated Tri-X and moved production to the new coating plant, they published new development times. Many, myself included, found the new recommended times for new 320 Tri-X and HC-110 to be way, way off; much too short. Kodak was apprised of the situation but did nothing. I did fine using the times published for the older version.

Bottom line, don't use Kodak for a reliable starting point this time. See if you can find a recommendation for someone using the same film size, developer and developing method you use and then adjust from there.

Best,

Doremus
 

ann

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 10, 2002
Messages
3,336
Format
35mm
Do Remus
Good you brought that up as I was just getting ready to response with similar info

I remember that situation clearly and in fact I called the tech line and they said the=new times listed=were not correct but I don’t think they ever corrected . Most folks at the time just continued to use similar times from previous versions.

In our classes now I recommend 6 minutes with solution b not 7 as was the=previously recommended times until some fool came up with 3.5
 

manualcrank

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
23
Format
Multi Format

ann

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 10, 2002
Messages
3,336
Format
35mm
Imho and experience anything under 5 minutes is a disaster.
That is why when they posted 3.5 as the=new+times firthe=“new trix” people went wild
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,098
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
In my experience, the "double the time if you are using dilution H" rule of thumb is very dependent on the film used.
320 TXP is a fair bit different than just about any other film - particularly in the Kodak line. Approaches that work with other films don't necessarily work with 320 TXP.
By the way, was it 220 format? Because the combination of 220 and dilution H can easily lead to developer exhaustion. For a 220 roll, Kodak's numbers say that you should use at least 768 ml of dilution H developer (12 ml of concentrate plus 756 ml of water) in order to avoid developer exhaustion
 

manualcrank

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
23
Format
Multi Format
Yes it would seem I forgot to adjust for 220 It was a roll of 220 in 9.4 ml chemistry (600ml tank). My bad. Kodak is good again.
 

Lachlan Young

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
4,945
Location
Glasgow
Format
Multi Format

What you have is TXT (sheet Tri-X), not TXP ('professional' roll film Tri-X). Not dissimilar in curve, colour sensitivity etc, but different developing times. Only much later did they become a single 'TXP' emulsion for both sheets &120/220.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…