Dark Development - A Developmenttime or a metering Problem ?

gmfotografie · Dec 6, 2020

Hi guys,

I just developed my first roll Kodak TriX400 after 6 years.
Most of my negatives looks good but too dark. I did a lot of film testing 6 years ago and find the best development time for 9:45 - this time was just calculated by an excelsheet (from the Book Lambrecht Way beyond Monochrome).

I metered at 320 and had a development time for 9:45 min (Kodak D76 1:1 , 20,5°C).

Should I meter at 200 or should I shorten the development time ?

Any tipps for me ?

THX

mpirie · Dec 6, 2020

If you expose Tri-X at 200, then your negatives will be darker than those you exposed at 320.

You can check your development times at the Massive Dev Chart, but for stock D-76 they're suggesting 6.75 mins @400

At 200, they suggest 9.5mins but that's for a 1:1 dilution, not stock.

Mike

koraks · Dec 6, 2020

gmfotografie said:
Most of my negatives looks good but too dark.

A picture is worth more than a 1000 words. Let's see the negatives.

gmfotografie · Dec 6, 2020

you see a sample .... a lot of grain - so my guess is that ,my development time is too long ?!

If I overdevelop my film the grain will be larger and more visible as I know correct?
sorry i did not mention that I use 1:1 D76

@mpierie
If you expose Tri-X at 200, then your negatives will be darker than those you exposed at 320.
yes the negatives are dearker but the final picture will be brighter - do you mean this ?
When I expose with filmspeed 200 and the film has 4000 - I overexpose the film a little bit.

Huub · Dec 6, 2020

Development wise that doesn't look too bad to me, as far as I can judge from the prints. It looks like you have the shadow detail you need and the high lights aren't blown out. The prints could do with a bit more contrast and could be printed a bit lighter, but that also is a matter of style and taste.

Donald Qualls · Dec 6, 2020

That doesn't seem excessively grainy for Tri-X to me, but I should disclaim that I first used Tri-X in 1975. The film has changed several times since then.

That said, as noted above, you developed for EI 200, near enough (9:45 vs. 9:30 in 1+1 on the MDC), your exposure at 320 ought to produce a slightly thin negative (2/3 stop under for the development).

Unless you have significant experience shooting and developing Tri-X, I'd recommend starting at box speed, both exposure and development. That speed was arrived at by Kodak via extensive testing to produce the best combination of final print detail (from shadows to highlights) and grain. Departing from that is best done intentionally, because your process or desired result differs from Kodak's, rather than because something you found on the Internet suggests someone else (who may meter differently, agitate differently, like a different negative, be printing optically where you're scanning or vice versa) preferred a different speed and process.

koraks · Dec 6, 2020

gmfotografie said:
you see a sample .... a lot of grain

Thanks, but I'd rather see a photo of the negatives. An inverted scan doesn't say much.

MattKing · Dec 6, 2020

koraks said:
Thanks, but I'd rather see a photo of the negatives. An inverted scan doesn't say much.

+1
In addition, I am uncertain whether the OP might be referring to dark scans, rather than dark (as in dense) negatives.

Sirius Glass · Dec 6, 2020

Donald Qualls said:
That doesn't seem excessively grainy for Tri-X to me, but I should disclaim that I first used Tri-X in 1975. The film has changed several times since then.

That said, as noted above, you developed for EI 200, near enough (9:45 vs. 9:30 in 1+1 on the MDC), your exposure at 320 ought to produce a slightly thin negative (2/3 stop under for the development).

Unless you have significant experience shooting and developing Tri-X, I'd recommend starting at box speed, both exposure and development. That speed was arrived at by Kodak via extensive testing to produce the best combination of final print detail (from shadows to highlights) and grain. Departing from that is best done intentionally, because your process or desired result differs from Kodak's, rather than because something you found on the Internet suggests someone else (who may meter differently, agitate differently, like a different negative, be printing optically where you're scanning or vice versa) preferred a different speed and process.

b
As Donald state unless you are a really good reason otherwise shoot Tri-X at the box speed of 400 and other films at box speed. Modern films have so much latitude that there is very little need to down rate the ISO speed, because the shadow detail is already captured.

Dark Development - A Developmenttime or a metering Problem ?

gmfotografie

mpirie

koraks

Moderator

gmfotografie

Attachments

Huub

Donald Qualls

koraks

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

Sirius Glass

Dark Development - A Developmenttime or a metering Problem ?

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency