Developing 1960's tri-x - looking for developing times compared to new tri-x

trythis · Jan 30, 2014

First, I am not expecting much. Yes, I know: FOG!!!.

OK, now that that is out of the way, I am using D76 and would like to get an idea as to how different the old tri-x times are compared to the new stuff.

Kodak and the massive dev chart only list 320 as 120 format otherwise its 400 in 35, that is available. I will run a few tests shot in the same conditions at different speeds and try some basic times at first.

Are the new times the same as the old version of this film?

I have a 400 ft roll of:

Eastman Tri-X
Panchromatic Negative
Safety Film - Type 5233
Type II class N

Military Exp date Sept 1961

Emulsion 5233-722-43

Index exposure 320

Again, I am very aware that this will probably fail no matter what, cosmic rays, etc. I cant find any anti fog chemicals cheap enough at this point.

I did some searchy searchy and the keywords bring up way too many things to sift through. Nothing really on Apug via the search for some reason.

THANKS!

Gerald C Koch · Jan 30, 2014

The key is the designation Eastman rather than Kodak. This is how Kodak distinguishes their cine products from their still camera films. Eastman 5233 Tri-X film is cine film and not Kodak Tri-X for still camera use so any data you obtain for the still film will not be correct. So you're basically on your own. Do some tests to determine the correct development time and EI.

Oren Grad · Jan 30, 2014

A bit of nosing around the web reveals that 5233 is motion picture stock. I don't think you can assume that recommended development will be the same as for still-picture TX, whether current or of comparable vintage.

Rick A · Jan 30, 2014

According to my PLI, D-76 9m@65f, 8m@68f, 7.5m@70f. This is for stock mix no dilution. These numbers are from 1976 photo lab index, and are only for a starting point, you will have to do your own tests.

trythis · Jan 30, 2014

Ok, somehow I missed the Eastman vs Kodak aspect. Even more fun!

Bill Burk · Jan 30, 2014

Be sure to "test" it at a very low speed such as EI 32 to 64. The way fog works ... it takes a lot of speed away. You lose contrast too, so "test" some longer development times.

trythis · Jan 30, 2014

A test, offer suggestions, please.

OK, I gave it a shot. Yes, a bit fogged, but not as bad as I thought, considering its 50+ years old.
This is scanned a a transparency:

Best I could get in these two.

Shot at 320.

D76 stock, 9 min @ 67 degrees
water stop
5 min Fixer
shortish rinse time, impatience...

Its a bit sloppy and splotchy, but thats cause I was in a hurry.

Question is, which way to go?

Add more time? Dilute developer, shoot at 100 speed? I would like some sugestions that might offer improvement to prevent me from wasting time on the wrong approach, if that is possible.

Bill Burk · Jan 30, 2014

You might be able to extract image to share from a negative scan off a flat neg... But you'd need Grade 5 paper to get a decent darkroom print... Hit it with more light. You might be OK with the development time.

Xmas · Jan 31, 2014

cine film is normally low contrast for printing on positive so would need longer for paper printing.
Id suggest either potassium bromide in D76 or other developer D76 tends to lift fog levels on fresh film more than other developers if you need to develop for longer.
Cine films are nice for stills.

cmacd123 · Jan 31, 2014

The numbers were perforated into the "leader" area of the film, so you will not liley find more until you get to the end where it will say "exposed" it does confirm you have genuine 5233. i have never seen that one. B&W movie stock at one time was XT pan, Plus-X pan, double X Pan, and 4X pan. Of course the military gets what they want.

trythis · Jan 31, 2014

http://filmphotographyproject.com/content/news/2013/10/fpp-line-store-october-2013-news

These guys had some of this for sale, but I guess it sold out.
From their page:

EASTMAN TRI-X 5233 (LIMITED!) - Locked in a vault for 60 years, the FPP now offers Eastman Tri-X Negative Film 5233 in convenient hand-rolled 35mm canisters of 20 exposures! Link and batch test examples Dead Link Removed

Gerald C Koch · Feb 1, 2014

cmacd123 said:
The numbers were perforated into the "leader" area of the film, so you will not liley find more until you get to the end where it will say "exposed" it does confirm you have genuine 5233. i have never seen that one. B&W movie stock at one time was XT pan, Plus-X pan, double X Pan, and 4X pan. Of course the military gets what they want.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motion_picture_film_stocks lists it. The film was introduced in 1954.

Xmas · Feb 1, 2014

cmacd123 said:
The numbers were perforated into the "leader" area of the film...

The perforations were normal for any film to be removed from its packaging, eg darkroom reloads of 36 exp 35mm lengths, had them on the long leader, to allow type identification before processing.

The ones I've seen used much smaller holes.

trythis · Feb 1, 2014

I ran another test batch at asa 12 through 100. The best seems to be ASA 25 and 50. Since the film is not numbered...at all, I am not sure which exact ASA these are; next time I will put test cards in the shots. Once they are printed or scanned, the difference between 25 and 50 is minimal. I ordered some HC-110 and will get some Moersch Restrainer and see if I can clean them up a little more without slowing the film anymore. I hope to get useable results at 100 speed with some practice.

the blur is from f1.4

Even if this is the best I can get, I will be pretty happy with it.

trythis · May 2, 2015

Reviving my old thread for some updates. I took a break but am shooting a lot of it to run some tests.
Attempting to use Benzotriazole to reduce the fog a bit and had decent results outdoors. It requires developing HC110 DIL B at 50 F for 15 minutes with 1% Benzo solution.
Indoors it was terrible even with flash. It almost seems like reciprocity failure because even with a good meter on an F100, the negatives are way too thin.

I think I will try some Dilution A at 50 F and see if it does any better.

Paul Verizzo · May 3, 2015

Diafine?

Diafine and Tri-X, indisputably great.

trythis · May 3, 2015

I dont have any but how is it with very old film?

Typos made on a tiny phone...

sfaber17 · May 5, 2015

I believe the fog will be pretty constant no matter what you do with it and it is futile to try reduce it. After all, the accumulated radiation has exposed some of the grains and they will be the first to appear. You just need to give it the couple of extra stops exposure as you have found.

Paul Verizzo · May 8, 2015

My suggestion would be Diafine. It's sort of film/fool proof and has always had a great relationship with Tri-X.

Since your goal is to get any image possible off of the film, I would suggest keeping it in Bath A for 5 minutes......or even more. The fact is, is that PQ develpers like Diafine Bath A do quite a bit of developing before being plopped into Bath B. Better to over develop than the opposite.

trythis · Jul 10, 2015

Adding a another test result.
I have had terrible results in the past getting decent indoor exposures even with flash but this roll looks much better. Of course its not Across 100, its grainy but actually printable up to 5 x 7 I think.
This roll was developed at 45 degrees F for 10 minutes in Dilution A HC110 with 2% Benzotriazole. Its underdeveloped (thin negs) so I will try again at 15 or 20 minutes. I am also considering a constant agitation with an even higher concentration of HC110 like 1:1 or 1.5:1 with stock solution:water adding the 1% or 2% Benzo. Am I right in thinking that the longer the film is developed and higher the temps that more grain will be produced? The fog is still there, but I am able to get decent info with neg scans. ( I am still building a darkroom for printing, sorry analog-ofiles)

These are straight off scanner, just reduced size to save server space.

5 rolls exposed ready for experiments after this! Lots of fun!

Bill Burk · Jul 10, 2015

I'm surprised you are developing so cold. But it looks like you are having fun.

trythis · Jul 10, 2015

I am under the impression that warmer temps add grain. I am no expert, just going making this up as I go and its seems to work this cold, unfortunately massive dev chart app only goes down to 64.

trythis · Jul 18, 2015

More experiments:
I bought some Diafine after several recommendations.
Not good. Not good at all.
I got one image I like, but the fog is intense and by far the worst results compared to D76, FA1027 and HC110.

Wondering if I add Benzotriazole to Part B if it will help with the fog. Or will it just ruin the developer.

Any ideas?

MartinCrabtree · Jul 18, 2015

Thanks for posting the results.

trythis · Jul 20, 2015

Another try with Diafine

The last roll was shot with a Konica Auto S2, this with a Canon A-1 and I think this roll came out better even though the base fog was rather thick:
A few shots:
This one shows how grainy this can be, but the highlights and shadows survived pretty well.

Still a bit grainy, but I am surprised by how much tonal range is available in the bottles.

I think that the indoor shots on this roll held up better than the typical HC110 with restrainer despite the fog. It could also be that I am getting better at using the Nikon SB-28 flash. I know I inject many variables that reduce scientific value, but its just for fun.

I think the next step is to shoot a roll in controlled conditions, cut it in half and develop half in my best HC110 recipe and half in Diafine.

Developing 1960's tri-x - looking for developing times compared to new tri-x

trythis

Gerald C Koch

Oren Grad

Rick A

trythis

Bill Burk

trythis

Bill Burk

Xmas

cmacd123

trythis

Gerald C Koch

Xmas

trythis

trythis

Attachments

Paul Verizzo

trythis

sfaber17

Paul Verizzo

trythis

Attachments

Bill Burk

trythis

trythis

Attachments

MartinCrabtree

trythis

Attachments

Developing 1960's tri-x - looking for developing times compared to new tri-x

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency