400TX fb+f

[studiocarter]

Two boxes of 5 rolls of Tri-X 400 film have been bought, shot, and processed. The second box came from a different batch than the first. The codes are different on the boxes. Both are within expiration dates. Both were developed identically. Both are different. The older box is much darker.
Is that a normal thing?

I thought that because I ran out of distilled water that the film got darker. Not so. The test roll I shot used distilled water for everything and the darkness remains just like without it.
What is going on?
I thought that film would be the same if you processed it the same.

 

[PinRegistered]

I suspect storage temperature may have been different at some point, though I could be wrong.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If the tap water is potable then NO the water did not cause what you saw.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You got it fogged somehow. Don't blame the film itself.

 

[Xmas]

Shutter running slower if rebates are the same?

If rebate printing darker bad developer package.

Bad film normally fogs so shadows and rebates would have silver.

If the rebates have non uniform silver or yellow tint your fixer kaput.

The new Tx needs more fixing...

 

[kreeger]

In most cases either light, heat or radiation (from gamma rays) cause b+f increases.

 

[MattKing]

They may print identically.

It would be interesting to try re-fixing the darker version.

 

[studiocarter]

I knew I would get blamed for this. I didn't fog it. It came from a refrigerator and straight into the camera the next day. I suppose the dealer had it sitting out a long time before putting it into the frig. Not fixing enough leaves the negatives pink. That goes away with 1/2 hour of washing but not with more fixing. I'll try more fixing on the dark negative to see if it lightens some. Printing times are different but quality may turn out to be the same at the different time of exposure. The same developer was used, a new batch.

 

[studiocarter]

The top portion was fixed 10 minuets more than the bottom. No change that I can see. It is NOT like the other batch of film that is much lighter.
This darker 400TX is labeled as 0841 012 09/2015
Has anyone else shot some of it?
The better film is labeled as 0921 011 11/2017

 

[MattKing]

I knew I would get blamed for this. I didn't fog it. It came from a refrigerator and straight into the camera the next day. I suppose the dealer had it sitting out a long time before putting it into the frig. Not fixing enough leaves the negatives pink. That goes away with 1/2 hour of washing but not with more fixing. I'll try more fixing on the dark negative to see if it lightens some. Printing times are different but quality may turn out to be the same at the different time of exposure. The same developer was used, a new batch.

Fog can come from heat, radiation and a combination of factors that are exacerbated with age. Based on your later post, it seems that the darker film is more than two years older.

Both may be fully within specs with respect to all the important criteria - how they record light, and print.

 

[PinRegistered]

Yes, I don't think it was any fault of yours, but the film was not under your control always. It appears uniform which is why I suspected heat fog. I used to flash my copy neg stock to reduce contrast. It will probably print just fine and give you a fraction more time to dodge and burn the print.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk