@Alex Benjamin: I intend to put some Tri-X through. I have been holding off using it until the Kentmere stuff is used up. I am excited to use Tri-X again. Anyone know if this film has changed during the years?
Thanks for posting, it's interesting to see these. You don't say what your thoughts/conclusions are?I developed some Tri-X yesterday and made a few sample prints in the wee hours of today.
Camera used was a Yashicamat 124G that I recently bought from a member here. Tri-X was exposed at EI 250, developed in Barry Thornton's two-bath D-23 for 4:30 in both baths, 12 grams of metaborate per liter of bath B and developed at 73F/22/7C. I went with EI 250 because I have been using Kentmere at that EI. Paper was Kentmere VC Select Luster developed in homebrew D-72 at 1:3.
It was an overcast day. I will have to do more testing on a bright sunny day. I have been reluctant with bringing any camera and equipment outdoors because the temps have been in the 20s and lower teens for a little while, with winds. Yesterday was in the 30s and today was in the 40s. This coming Thursday shows sun and temps in the early 40s. This would be the time to get out there for the second testing.
#1 Court House - I didn't notice the guy there. He yelled "HEY!" just before I snapped the picture.
1/30 at f/9
#2 Paul at church - He didn't even know I was there. Snuckaroonie
1/30 at f/13
#3 The Happy Frog - That is one chill frog. One year someone broke into the frog and stole the cash. At that time he was known as the Starving Frog.
1/30 at f/9
#4 Left over pumpkins - Handheld shot. The leftovers that never got sold at the local convenient store that I go to every day.
1/15 at f/6.7
Thanks for posting, it's interesting to see these. You don't say what your thoughts/conclusions are?
How did you meter these scenes? I hope this won't seem impertinent, but given the online rendering of these images, it looks to me as though they could do with a bit more exposure. That's very subjective, of course, and maybe you do like the ink black shadows. But it may also influence what others think about this film/developer combination.
Looking back, I've only once developed Tri-X in BT2B, in 2009. I had favoured Tri-X/Emofin for several years before that, but Emofin was being discontinued, and I thought BT2B might make a substitute. So, as for Emofin, I rated the film at 640 ISO, which - given subsequent experience of BT2B - was a mistake. Actually I stopped using Tri-X after that too (because of price), but even at 640 ISO the combination did seem to give good luminous shadows. Not sure whether that will be evident in this posted image (negative scan), but here goes. I have no recollection of whether/how I metered the scene, but most likely I was just at max aperture and 1/15 sec. (I have not attempted to burn in highlight detail in the window, but it is there in the negative and even in the scan.)
View attachment 385718
No, I've not tried it. Diafine isn't easy to get hold of over here (UK), and I've pretty much settled on BT2B now.Have you ever tried Diafine? I never had the opportunity to. Diafine might enhance grain slightly more than Emofin, from what I have read about it.
Well, I love getting away with it! It's a shame not to get the best out of a good lens, but sometimes an image has enough interest to carry it off.Don't you just love handholding slower shutter speeds? Your image has excellent details in the ranges of shadows.
The snow would have influenced the incident reading, perhaps?Metering was incident using a Minolta IV with dome pointed toward the camera position. The day was sort of in between flat and normal with some shadows being deep.
The snow would have influenced the incident reading, perhaps?
Incident measures the overall light coming from the source going onto the scene. Subject reflectivity has no influence.
But I have used no other developer for 15-20 years now
i used 7.8g of sodium carbonate in solution B as i dont have any metaborate and i cant afford a bottle right now.
You don’t need to buy metaborate as such. See this thread.
I have some sodium hydroxide thats from kodak that i got from my professor a few months ago. i have no idea how old it is, but i suspect its at least from the 90s? no real date on it so far as i can see. only indication is a "brooks cameras san francisco" and it closed its doors in 2007.
i saw on that thread that storage will lessen its efficiency. do you think that'll be a problem here? i have borax already.
In my following of this thread I've become increasingly interested in the two bath process. So far the discussion seems to be centered around roll films, either small format or medium format. Are there any concerns as it relates to sheet film and in particular TMX (using SP445 tank) as that is the only film I use. In the Thornton quotes that have been posted he indicates that no agitation is ideal in bath B for unsprocketed MF film and so I assume that would also apply to a sheet of film. Has any of the folks here used BTTB with no agitation in bath B with LF film?
In my following of this thread I've become increasingly interested in the two bath process. So far the discussion seems to be centered around roll films, either small format or medium format. Are there any concerns as it relates to sheet film and in particular TMX (using SP445 tank) as that is the only film I use. In the Thornton quotes that have been posted he indicates that no agitation is ideal in bath B for unsprocketed MF film and so I assume that would also apply to a sheet of film. Has any of the folks here used BTTB with no agitation in bath B with LF film?
P.S. I don't want to leave the impression in my comment above that the negs are "high contrast". Barry Thornton keeps talking about "sharpness" in his book, and that word my indeed be more adequate.
In my following of this thread I've become increasingly interested in the two bath process. So far the discussion seems to be centered around roll films, either small format or medium format. Are there any concerns as it relates to sheet film and in particular TMX (using SP445 tank) as that is the only film I use. In the Thornton quotes that have been posted he indicates that no agitation is ideal in bath B for unsprocketed MF film and so I assume that would also apply to a sheet of film. Has any of the folks here used BTTB with no agitation in bath B with LF film?
Thanks, I understood it was meant as a relative term to the TTB process. I do not have his book but in watching the Finch YT video on divided development, I "think" it was stated that the TTB uses just 80g of the sodium metaborate in bath B, which is supposed to provide a sharper grain than the 100g used more traditionally, I guess.
I have used the no-agitation scheme in bath B, but with 120 film. Of all the films I've developed this past year in BTTB, there has been three or four that came out with slight problems, i.e., what seems to be uneven development on the edge. I say "what seems to be" because I'm not sure if it is, indeed, uneven development or if it comes from a slight light leak on my camera back. I say this because the films—again, a very small minority—that exhibit this problem were from the Bronica SQ and none of the film shot with the Pentax 67 have shown any problem.
I've just got a new Bronica SQ back, so I will test again the no-agitation scheme as soon as I have time to shoot a few picks.
That said, I've also developed quite a few films with just 2 inversions after pouring bath B, followed by two more at the 2 and 4 minute mark and haven't seen a difference, although I didn't do extensive testing.
Thornton remained quite vague about the effects of agitation (and time, and temperature, for that matter) on development with his two-bath formula. I was surprised how much contrast I've gotten from it—without agitation—with a 200 ISO-rated HP5+, but I find these negs very interesting to work with by split-grade printing in the darkroom. Someone else may have different tastes and might prefer a bit less contrast. Again, I haven't tested enough to know if it's time or less agitation in bath A (on which Thornton is also vague) that has the most effect.
Sheet film being the price it is, I wouldn't advise the no-agitation scheme at the beginning, unless you already have exposed film whose images you don't care too much about. If you can afford to waste a couple of sheets, do test it and let us know.
In my following of this thread I've become increasingly interested in the two bath process. So far the discussion seems to be centered around roll films, either small format or medium format. Are there any concerns as it relates to sheet film and in particular TMX (using SP445 tank) as that is the only film I use. In the Thornton quotes that have been posted he indicates that no agitation is ideal in bath B for unsprocketed MF film and so I assume that would also apply to a sheet of film. Has any of the folks here used BTTB with no agitation in bath B with LF film?
The 80 grams is the amount for the sodium sulfite in the developer. The amounts of metaborate for bath B are 7, 12 and 20 grams per liter. Sometimes I use 20 grams. This amount enhances certain scenes containing mostly midtones. Images take on a really solid appearance that I like.
I am not qualified to confirm or question this, but isn’t ‘less shoulder’ at odds with the widespread claim that highlights are restrained by exhaustion of the developer held in the emulsion?(2) A somewhat straightened characteristic curve (ie less shoulder, less toe) regardless of the gradient chosen
Based on my own testing, contrast is controlled by time/agitation in the first bath as would normally be the case. The alkalinity of the second bath doesn’t seem to affect contrast but it may affect image structure. Fog will also increase with increasing alkalinity of the second bath as the formulas used for the first bath are not typically “optimized” for the composition of the second bath. Agitation or not in the second bath probably won’t make much of a difference in final emulsion speed or contrast but it might (or might not) affect uniformity. Unfortunately there is relatively little in the reputable literature on “best practices” for this type of divided development so ultimately there will probably be some trial and error depending on your goals.
I am not qualified to confirm or question this, but isn’t ‘less shoulder’ at odds with the widespread claim that highlights are restrained by exhaustion of the developer held in the emulsion?
Can you point us to any densitometry that shows the characteristic curves of familiar emulsions in 2-bath developers?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?