Favorite Dev for Tri-X in 120

[Grim Tuesday]

I was recently fortunate enough to win an auction for 50 rolls of 120 Tri-X, a film I honestly have struggled to get good results in with my standard dev, hc110. I've loved hc110 for 35mm Tri-X but for some reason I never like what I get from it in medium format. It seems soft, mushy and the contrast is not the same as I expect even when using the same times. Perhaps it's a result of matrix metering in 35mm vs incident in 120. Either way, I have a ton of this film now and am looking for recommendations for developers. Any suggestions?

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Is the film fresh?

 

[odell1618photography]

I was recently fortunate enough to win an auction for 50 rolls of 120 Tri-X, a film I honestly have struggled to get good results in with my standard dev, hc110. I've loved hc110 for 35mm Tri-X but for some reason I never like what I get from it in medium format. It seems soft, mushy and the contrast is not the same as I expect even when using the same times. Perhaps it's a result of matrix metering in 35mm vs incident in 120. Either way, I have a ton of this film now and am looking for recommendations for developers. Any suggestions?

d76 1:1
EI 250
8' 45 "
Continuous agitation first 30", five inversions each 30" after.

Trust me

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Is the film fresh?

It is 2016 expired and seemed decently stored.

 

[GregY]

I use Pyrocat HD in gylcol (& i've never in over 15 yrs had any issues w the developer. I get great results on my 2 favourite films. FP4+ & Tri-X in 35,120 & LF

 

[Colin Corneau]

Well, I had great luck with both Rodinal and Ilfotec DD-X (a developer that from my experience seems to just do everything really well).

For contrast, try adjusting your agitation but also your developing times...perhaps an additional 10-20% will make a difference for you. I myself really prefer a snappier, contrasty negative.

 

[BradS]

Tri-X and HC-110 are a near perfect match. You might try D-76 but it seems unlikely that you see much difference.

...but if that combo is not working for you, maybe Xtol or something with more punch, like Accufine?


but seriously, it is hard for me to imagine Tri-X not giving anything less than fantastic result in HC-110.

What is your process? At what EI do you rate the film? ...hmmm, maybe, it is a mushy lens?

 

[MattKing]

maybe, it is a mushy lens?

Or as likely, a medium format lens that favours resolution over contrast.
Or equally as likely, a scanning or optically printing procedure that yields less contrast.
If you are trying to dial in your results, try shooting all or part of a roll of 35mm and a roll of 120 side by side, photographing the same scenes and using the same exposure settings. Try shots using the settings recommended by first one meter and then the other (if they differ). Develop the rolls together, and compare the results.

 

[removedacct1]

I was recently fortunate enough to win an auction for 50 rolls of 120 Tri-X, a film I honestly have struggled to get good results in with my standard dev, hc110. I've loved hc110 for 35mm Tri-X but for some reason I never like what I get from it in medium format. It seems soft, mushy and the contrast is not the same as I expect even when using the same times. Perhaps it's a result of matrix metering in 35mm vs incident in 120. Either way, I have a ton of this film now and am looking for recommendations for developers. Any suggestions?

If you have used Tri-X with HC-110 in the past and liked the result, then the lack of contrast you're experiencing is more likely due to the inherent contrast properties of the lens in your medium format camera. One of my favorite 120 format lenses is the old Tessar f3.5 in my Rolleiflex, but compared to the Zeiss lenses on my Hasselblad, its quite a bit softer. I happen to really like the softer contrast of the older Tessar. What camera/lens are you using for your 120 Tri-X tests? You could try extending the processing time a bit to get some extra punch out of it.

 

[removed account4]

My favorite hands down is Caffenol C made strong with the teaspoon recipe and a dash of ansco 130 ( or Dektol if you don't have 130 ) its fantastic !

 

[Alan9940]

Like BradS, I've used the Tri-X / HC-110 combo for all formats from 35mm to 8x10 for 40 years and love it! On rare occasions, I have been known to use D-76 1:1 and that's nice, too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use Pyrocat HD in gylcol (& i've never in over 15 yrs had any issues w the developer. I get great results on my 2 favourite films. FP4+ & Tri-X in 35,120 & LF

What is your development time for Tri-X 400 120 in Pyrocat HD in Glycol? I am still looking for the right time.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have been using replenished XTOL which gives better shadow detail, acutance, finer grain and smoother tonality then even what is posted in this:

I like what Pyrocat HD in Glycol does, but I have not found the best development time.

 

[Dali]

I was recently fortunate enough to win an auction for 50 rolls of 120 Tri-X, a film I honestly have struggled to get good results in with my standard dev, hc110. I've loved hc110 for 35mm Tri-X but for some reason I never like what I get from it in medium format. It seems soft, mushy and the contrast is not the same as I expect even when using the same times. Perhaps it's a result of matrix metering in 35mm vs incident in 120. Either way, I have a ton of this film now and am looking for recommendations for developers. Any suggestions?

Aaaah, you are the one who outbidded me.... Enjoy the 50 rolls!

To me, Tri-X = D76 1+1.5 for 16min @ 68F. I use a color head enlarger so my development time might seem a bit long...

 

[juan]

What is your development time for Tri-X 400 120 in Pyrocat HD in Glycol? I am still looking for the right time.

I’d start at 20-minutes, 70F, 1:1:100, 1-minute initial agitation, 10-seconds on the five minute marks. That’s been generally good for me on all 400 speed films, though I may bump it up some for HP5+.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I’d start at 20-minutes, 70F, 1:1:100, 1-minute initial agitation, 10-seconds on the five minute marks. That’s been generally good for me on all 400 speed films, though I may bump it up some for HP5+.

Thanks, I should have mentioned in a Jobo processor.

 

[GregY]

Sirius, I tray process LF and process 35 & 120 in small tanks. My standard time is 14 minutes. 20 min in a Jobo will cook it for sure. Actually the printed info from Photo Formulary is quite good and summarizes much that has been written about Pyrocat and goes into detail re output.... i.e. VC or graded paper etc. Most of my negatives print well on grade 2 or equivalent filtration.

 

[Mackinaw]

For me, Xtol 1+1. As for times and temps, I follow what is on the Kodak Tri-X data sheet.

Jim B.

 

[radiant]

No purpose to start wars so this question is purely on curiosity: why use D76 when XTOL is in all means based on the data? (refererring to kodak's table in post https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/favorite-dev-for-tri-x-in-120.169764/#post-2209027). There is no large price difference either and both need to be mixed from powder too.

I know that XTOL dies without indication after some months - but is that only reason? (for me that hasn't been problem, I store xtol in air-free 1 liter bottles and usually the complete 5 liter batch is used anyways in few months..)

 

[awty]

I was recently fortunate enough to win an auction for 50 rolls of 120 Tri-X, a film I honestly have struggled to get good results in with my standard dev, hc110. I've loved hc110 for 35mm Tri-X but for some reason I never like what I get from it in medium format. It seems soft, mushy and the contrast is not the same as I expect even when using the same times. Perhaps it's a result of matrix metering in 35mm vs incident in 120. Either way, I have a ton of this film now and am looking for recommendations for developers. Any suggestions?

Yep thats why I dont use it, except if its cheap. Good luck.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Aaaah, you are the one who outbidded me.... Enjoy the 50 rolls!

To me, Tri-X = D76 1+1.5 for 16min @ 68F. I use a color head enlarger so my development time might seem a bit long...

It's too bad both of us were there, had one of us not been the other probably could have gotten it for $58. I think you were the only other person bidding who knew it was 10 boxes, not 10 rolls! You wouldn't happen to have any Delta 400 that you'd like to trade for Tri-X would you? I lost that auction by a dollar!

No purpose to start wars so this question is purely on curiosity: why use D76 when XTOL is in all means based on the data? (refererring to kodak's table in post https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/favorite-dev-for-tri-x-in-120.169764/#post-2209027). There is no large price difference either and both need to be mixed from powder too.

I know that XTOL dies without indication after some months - but is that only reason? (for me that hasn't been problem, I store xtol in air-free 1 liter bottles and usually the complete 5 liter batch is used anyways in few months..)

I think the case against xtol all the time is that it may not produce the desired contrast curve, even if all the measurables are better.

 

[pentaxuser]

Isn't the key issue here the question of why HC110 does a good job with Tri-X 35mm but not Tri-X120 in Grim Tuesday's case. What is he doing that gives him OK negs in 35mm but soft, mushy and lacking contrast negs in 120. I would have thought that a difference in metering or camera might give him differences in exposure and maybe contrast but soft and mushy I cannot explain.

Does the soft, mushy and lack of contrast translate into similarly defective prints? Are the prints hybrid ones - they sound as if they might be?

pentaxuser

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Isn't the key issue here the question of why HC110 does a good job with Tri-X 35mm but not Tri-X120 in Grim Tuesday's case. What is he doing that gives him OK negs in 35mm but soft, mushy and lacking contrast negs in 120. I would have thought that a difference in metering or camera might give him differences in exposure and maybe contrast but soft and mushy I cannot explain.

Does the soft, mushy and lack of contrast translate into similarly defective prints? Are the prints hybrid ones - they sound as if they might be?

pentaxuser

It's an interesting question. I don't think it is the lenses... The results I tend to like in 35mm are with my Nikon 50mm 1.4AI and Nikon FA so the metering should be solid. The results I don't like have been with Hasselblad and Autocord lenses, both which I think are plenty contrasty. I have a Sekonic incident meter, though maybe I'm not using it right. I usually just meter for the subject and point at my camera. Is this wrong?

I did have a negative of tx that I liked recently come out of my mamiya c330, and it printed wet nicely. Though I still preferred my Delta 400 negatives from the same day. I haven't tried to print a negative I didn't like the look of yet, maybe I should try with more contrast filters. When they scan I feel that they don't have enough separation of midtones. They all kinda mush together instead of anything standing out as glowing.

The confounding thing is, every frame of 35mm Tri-X I take looks snappy and contrasty to my eyes (and print nicely). But it seems it is not such a done deal with medium format and others (@awty do you also dislike tmx in 35mm?) may have the same problem.

 

[Dali]

It's too bad both of us were there, had one of us not been the other probably could have gotten it for $58. I think you were the only other person bidding who knew it was 10 boxes, not 10 rolls! You wouldn't happen to have any Delta 400 that you'd like to trade for Tri-X would you? I lost that auction by a dollar!

Sorry but I don't use delta film...

 

[jim appleyard]

D-76, HC-110, Thornton's Two Bath, Pyrocat HD, PMK, Rodinal, Beutler's, Microdol-X, Ansco 17, Diafine, Acufine, FG-7, WD2D, ......