Developing Times/Technique for Tri-X and D-76

[Obtong]

Hello,

I recently returned to the darkroom after an absence of almost 20 years. I am enjoying myself immensely and getting some pretty good results. However, I am noticing that I am having to work harder at getting "straight prints" from my Tri-X (35mm) and D-76 combination. Most of my negatives are somewhat flat, and I find myself often printing with MG Filter grades of 3 or 4. My negatives from the early to mid 80's look great, and I was able to print most of them easily. I understand that Tri-X has changed, but I don't really know if my results now are typical for the new version of the film.

Here's my technique for developing Tri-X (35mm 400 ISO) with D-76:
D-76, 1-1, at 68F
9 3/4 mins, two inversions of (Paterson) tank every 30 secs
Stop Bath, 30 secs
Fix, 5-10 mins
Wash

What would be the best part of my technique to change first to get "normal" negatives, or are my results typical for the new version of Tri-X?

Thanks,
~Dom

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The easiest way to build more contrast in your negatives is to develop them longer. Add time to your 9.75 minutes until you're happy with how they print.

- Thomas

 

[BetterSense]

Your development sounds ok, but who can account for differences between darkrooms. I think when I shot tri-X in D76 1+1, I used 9 min at 20C. In medium format, I develop it in HC110 1+50 for 8 minutes or D23 straight for 8 minutes. I usually print with grade 2. Grade 3 if the light was really flat.

 

[hspluta]

As Thomas says extend your development time, but be aware that the more you extend it the more grain becomes pronounced. Now for my taste I actually like the way the grain in Tri-X looks.

Just remember that it is your exposure that controls the density of the shadows ( how dark the darkest part of the print gets ) and your development that controls the density of the highlights ( how light the highlights get ). Work with that until you get negatives that have the range you are looking for.

Myself I am playing with "stand" development using HC-110. I like the combo as the liquid is easy to mix just what I need for the current development load, and "stand" development seems to be getting me more acutance in the transition areas. I am using a very diluted mix of developer which gives me a longer development time which in turn allows me to have a more consistent process control.

-Harry

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

As Thomas says extend your development time, but be aware that the more you extend it the more grain becomes pronounced. Now for my taste I actually like the way the grain in Tri-X looks.

Actually, I respectfully disagree with the grain idea. By extending development you will arrive at a full contrast negative, and in my experience those are the negatives that make prints with the least noticeable grain. Why? Because you can print with normal contrast filtration.
Reason: If you produce a negative that is slightly under-developed (which is the case here), you have to print with a harder grade filtration - which emphasizes the grain in the print.

The only time I notice excessive grain is when the film is either overexposed without having being compensated for in processing (very dense negs), or when the film has been over-developed beyond a normal contrast range (regardless of how it was exposed).

 

[fschifano]

I get perfectly good negatives from Tri-X in D-76 1+1 when I go "by the book", in this case Kodak's recommendations. Agitation is fairly vigorous for 5 seconds every thirty seconds. Very low contrast negatives are not typical for the new or old formulation of Tri-X.

Temperature control is often the overlooked culprit here. A worker will take pains to insure that the developer is at the right temperature, only to pour it into a cold tank. Well, guess what happens. Your nicely tempered developer is no longer nicely tempered and may very well have lost at least a degree or two. As we all should know, cooler temperatures slow down development and under development leads to lower contrast negatives.

In my own darkroom, I take pains to temper the tank along with the chemistry to minimize the temperature change. Everything goes into a water bath and sits there for a while until it's all stable. The tank is returned to the water bath between agitation cycles. Even then, the developer will loose about 1/2 degree F during the pour. How do I know this? I measured it using the same thermometer each time, and my conclusions are based on not one but many, many observations. I've also calibrated my thermometer against a known good standard.

So there you have it. The problem is likely that your temperature control isn't as controlled as you might think.

 

[Obtong]

Hi. I've re-read some of my Kodak data sheets as well as the replies on this thread. I do use a waterbath to keep the temperature of the developer constant, but my agitation is by no means "vigorous". At present I invert my developing tank just twice every 30 seconds, and the inversions are not vigorous. So, for the next roll I will try inverting/agitating vigorously for 5 seconds every 30 seconds. If that doesn't do the trick I will look at either extending development time or shooting my Tri-X at EI200.

~Dom

 

[BetterSense]

I forgot to specify in my post, that I do 3 quick inversions per minute. I always shoot tri-x at 200 ish unless it's gloomy out.

 

[John Shriver]

First, is your thermometer accurate? (Note: that is a hard question to answer! I calibrate my Weston Miroband against a Kodak Process Thermometer periodically.)

Second, did you use 8 ounces of developer and 8 ounces of water to process one roll of film? If you only used 4 and 4, add 10% to the developing time -- that's on the D-76 data sheet. Plus, Kodak calls for 10 minutes, not 9-3/4 minutes. So 4 and 4 would be 11 minutes.

Third, two inversions might be a bit "dainty" in the agitation area.

 

[Rick A]

Normal agitation, is constant agitation for the first 30 seconds, followed by 5 inversions every 30 seconds, or 10 inversions on the minute. An inversion is upending the tank 180 degrees and then back right-side-up. St. Ansel recommended adding a twisting motion at the same time. Either way, you will get good agitation.
Be very aware of your temperture, I pre-soak film for two minutes with water at proper temp to get the tank and film up to temp, and it rinses the anti-halation layer away prior to development. Try to keep all chems at same temp to avoid reticulation. Some films are more prone to it than others, better safe than sorry.

 

[pgomena]

D-76 1:1, 8 minutes 68F, Tri-X at 200 or 250 EI. Constant gentle agitation first 30 seconds, two inversions on the 30 second mark thereafter. Same for HC-110 dilution B, only 5 minutes total time and gentle agitation.

Peter Gomena

 

[Scott Murphy]

I am going to part with all of you on this one. I use it with Ansel Adams' Zone System and get fantastic results. I shoot TX at ASA 200 for 8 1/2 minutes @ 68º F. This is my Normal (N) development time. My N+1 time is 12 min and my N-1 time 6 minutes, both at 68º F. The grain is tighter and the acutance higher, even in the pushed or pulled times.

 

[Dali]

Good for you.

 

[Scott Murphy]

Good for you.

If you were bring sarcastic, take a break, you don't have to be a dick every day of your life. If not, I apologize for the comment.

 

[Arvee]

If you were bring sarcastic, take a break, you don't have to be a dick every day of your life. If not, I apologize for the comment.

You realize you have responded to a 10 year old thread.....

 

[Scott Murphy]

You realize you have responded to a 10 year old thread.....

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that threads had an expiration date. Not much to do today?

 

[MattKing]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that threads had an expiration date. Not much to do today?

They don't usually expire, but sometimes they get really, really quiet!
I expect you didn't notice that there had been no activity in this thread in more than ten years - your post gave the impression that you thought that you were participating in an ongoing discussion.
Some of the participants are still active, while others are not.
I thought Dali's post was cheeky, but funny. I doubt he/she intended offense.