Almost the First Time

[ColColt]

I remember my first developed roll of film back in 1978 and what a thrill it was to see the images on those negatives with my Peak 10x loupe. Today for the first time since about 1998 I developed my first roll in years and got that same feeling.

I had recently bought an M2 and two lens and half a dozen rolls of Tri-X. I had already ordered the chemistry needed from Freestyle and it was waiting to be used. I developed in HC-110, Dilution B, my old standby, and the negatives looked good. I'm awaiting the dry time before checking them out and scanning to see how they look. Ain't life good?

 

[Nathan King]

It never gets old, does it? Welcome back to film processing!

 

[ColColt]

No, and I'm glad Tri-X is still available...maybe I need to order a case just in case it goes by the way of Agfapan 400.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Great!
Two lenses already! I lost track of it after yours thread went sideways.
Hope to see another threads soon from you. Here:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[MattKing]

Is this your new theme song?:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tl-kOcnn1U

 

[Sirius Glass]

Enjoy!!

 

[ColColt]

Well, during the process of scanning things went haywire. Nearly none of the images came out looking sharp. Even after I bumped up the focus Intensity and Radius they still weren't' sharp. I think I discovered where at least most of the problem is. This new Tri-X doesn't dry as flat as the old stuff did and curls so bad even after I used the ANR glass I bought from betterscanning, it wasn't heavy enough to push the strips flat. It curls up and you can't put the strips the usual way, emulsion side up as it's even worse.

I'm not quite sure what to do at this point. I thought the weight of the glass would make it flat but it doesn't. I'll never get any sharp images this way...I'll have to work on this. Meanwhile, I'll entertain any ideas.

I thought the unsharpness may have been from the camera in that there's a little vertical misalignment but I think the culprit is the negative curl.

 

[Xmas]

Best anti curl in order

fomapan400
Kentmere400 & HP5+

The Foma and kentmere cheap

But for any of them you need to dry with RH high like 80% or more

Run hot shower for five hang film in shower cubi cal close door or draw curtain.
Leave for 12 hours

Tx can be curly ditto Tmax

If you squeegee it makes effect worse.

Try and get enlarger for free or cheap you don't need a darkroom!

 

[Xmas]

Well, during the process of scanning things went haywire. Nearly none of the images came out looking sharp. Even after I bumped up the focus Intensity and Radius they still weren't' sharp. I think I discovered where at least most of the problem is. This new Tri-X doesn't dry as flat as the old stuff did and curls so bad even after I used the ANR glass I bought from betterscanning, it wasn't heavy enough to push the strips flat. It curls up and you can't put the strips the usual way, emulsion side up as it's even worse.

I'm not quite sure what to do at this point. I thought the weight of the glass would make it flat but it doesn't. I'll never get any sharp images this way...I'll have to work on this. Meanwhile, I'll entertain any ideas.

I thought the unsharpness may have been from the camera in that there's a little vertical misalignment but I think the culprit is the negative curl.

You can bodge the vertical but you should really to the other two at same time and it is well difficult.

 

[ColColt]

I've shot hundreds of rolls of Tri-X and they never curled like this. Must be the new formulation. Last roll I shot was in the early 90's.

What does "bodge" mean?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Film that curls while is drying is drying in an area with not enough humidity.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I've shot hundreds of rolls of Tri-X and they never curled like this. Must be the new formulation. Last roll I shot was in the early 90's.

What does "bodge" mean?

I think it means going to Bodge City Kansas.

 

[John Bragg]

Tri-X does curl like mad when I develop it as well. As has been said, I dont recall this as being a problem years ago with the "old" Tri-X. I am now using HP5+ instead.

 

[Xmas]

I've shot hundreds of rolls of Tri-X and they never curled like this. Must be the new formulation. Last roll I shot was in the early 90's.

What does "bodge" mean?

It is a bad slang English word 'speculative' (try google) the vertical adjustment can alter the horizontal accuracy try it on moon first there will be meteorites probably, this to check the infinity is ok the moon is far enough away.
The vertical is a small screw behind the face plate screw between the small window and the translucent window you need set of watch makers screw drivers and high contrast small target at 100 yards.
Id leave it unless you are practical, it can upset the horizontal!

If you drop the camera it will shift the images again.

 

[Xmas]

I've shot hundreds of rolls of Tri-X and they never curled like this. Must be the new formulation. Last roll I shot was in the early 90's.

What does "bodge" mean?

Kodak changed the film about 2006 the Trix is now Tx and the data sheet is different (download) and it is more difficult to fix if it is pink fixing is marginal.
It is finer grain.

 

[ColColt]

I used HP5 long ago as well but with Rodinal instead of HC-110. I just scanned some ole 1985 Tri-X negatives last week and they were nearly as flat as a sheet of paper...not this new stuff. And, I just bought half a dozen rolls of it.

I was trying to see how sharp my two new lens was but at this rate I can't. Maybe time to go back to HP5 and Rodinal. What I'll do with that large bottle of HC-110 is yet to be determined.

 

[ColColt]

Kodak changed the film about 2006 the Trix is now Tx and the data sheet is different (download) and it is more difficult to fix if it is pink fixing is marginal.
It is finer grain.

they changed something for sure. I didn't have a data sheet that came with the rolls I bought like they use to do. Fixing was fine-no pink. I used Rapid Fixer with the hardener for three minutes and no problem.

 

[Xmas]

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f9/f9.pdf

You need to down load everything no paper any more.

 

[Xmas]

The hardner may be overkill the film is pre-hardened and you need to wash longer after hardening.

 

[MartinP]

You can make a contact print without an enlarger. Most likely (depending on how you have cut your film) you can get the whole thing on a sheet of 8x10". Choose a reputable brand of RC paper, find a sheet of glass or perspex and a table-lamp, buy a few trays and simple chemicals and - after the contacts - you are halfway to printing in a bathroom-darkroom. Next step will be an enlarger, then you can take over the world

 

[Xmas]

I used HP5 long ago as well but with Rodinal instead of HC-110. I just scanned some ole 1985 Tri-X negatives last week and they were nearly as flat as a sheet of paper...not this new stuff. And, I just bought half a dozen rolls of it.

I was trying to see how sharp my two new lens was but at this rate I can't. Maybe time to go back to HP5 and Rodinal. What I'll do with that large bottle of HC-110 is yet to be determined.

The hc110 times for HP5+ are here

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20106281054152313.pdf

But try using the shower cubical as earlier in thread

HP5+ and Tx are different I'd try each...

 

[ColColt]

good read there, Xmas...thanks. That's the sort of thing Kodak use to supply with every roll of Tri-X. I have a Besler 23CII in storage but don't want to drag it out. That's why I decided to get a scanner and do it that way, albeit, much different than the normal way. When looking for my Paterson film tanks and reels recently I ran across a 50mm Rodagon and a 100mm Schneider lens I use to use for the 6x7. It brought back memories.

I had an idea. I'm going to try and reverse roll some of these strips I've already cut and put them back on the plastic Paterson reels and let them alone overnight and check tomorrow to see if they've straightened out any...nothing to loose.

 

[Xmas]

http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/zm/Planar2.0_50mm_ZM_e.pdf

You need a tripod and panf+ to test it

 

[ColColt]

If I can't get sharp images at 250 at f8 with a 50mm lens I may as well quit. No tripod necessary.

 

[John Bragg]

I used HP5 long ago as well but with Rodinal instead of HC-110. I just scanned some ole 1985 Tri-X negatives last week and they were nearly as flat as a sheet of paper...not this new stuff. And, I just bought half a dozen rolls of it.

I was trying to see how sharp my two new lens was but at this rate I can't. Maybe time to go back to HP5 and Rodinal. What I'll do with that large bottle of HC-110 is yet to be determined.

Use the HC-110 with HP5+. It is a killer combination when used in the right way ! Examples here https://www.flickr.com/photos/25714267@N06/sets/72157646005579978