How do you agitate your 35mm Tri-X in D-76 1+1 ?

[Juan Valdenebro]

Although Kodak recommend 5 seconds of fast inversions in the beginning, and the same every 30 seconds, many photographers consider that's too much agitation for half the scenes in a roll: those under direct sunlight... Kodak's recommendation seems great for soft light scenes... But what do you do for mixed scenes when you use 35mm Tri-X?

For a small format roll including all types of scene contrast, do you prefer to agitate less frequently? Do you extend development time because of that reduced agitation?

Thanks.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Would you agitate differently for condenser/diffusion enlargers, or would you prefer just changing development time?

 

[mshchem]

Follow Kodak recommended times. Agitation scheme for small (Nikor and similar) has always been as you describe. I wouldn’t extend time unless you have partially exhausted developer.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use the standard Kodak agitation scheme. To increase or decrease contrast, I adjust the time and temp, still use my Kodak Black and White data guide, not sure of date of publication, sometime in the 60s. For those who have not seen one there as wheel that shows times for Kodak films compensated for contrast. I've added times for many films, Foma, Ultrafine, with developers

other than Kodak. Seems to still work.

 

[mshchem]

I use the standard Kodak agitation scheme. To increase or decrease contrast, I adjust the time and temp, still use my Kodak Black and White data guide, not sure of date of publication, sometime in the 60s. For those who have not seen one there as wheel that shows times for Kodak films compensated for contrast. I've added times for many films, Foma, Ultrafine, with developers View attachment 279679 other than Kodak. Seems to still work.

I grew up with one of these, my Dad had one, black cover, early 60's late 50s. We didn't have a fancy inversion tank. I bought a new Paterson tank c.1970

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

So,
Could we say Kodak agitation scheme (7-8 fast inversions during 5 seconds, every 30 seconds) is the best possible agitation when we mix soft and hard contrast scenes in the same Tri-X roll?

When does it make sense to agitate other ways?

 

[MattKing]

I have three of those Kodak Darkroom data guides - I used to have four.
I use the Kodak scheme - 5 seconds every 30 seconds.
I am confident that I would achieve the exact same results if I used the Ilford scheme - 10 seconds every 60 seconds.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Ian Grant, 2012, talking about Tri-X:
"Personally I do 2 inversion agitation cycles every 30 seconds for the first 2 minutes, then every minute after that."
That's a lot less agitation than Kodak's recommendation, and closer to what I prefer, just to take care of sunny scenes.
Of course for LF or for rolls with a single type of scene contrast, things are simple... But there's no much talking about how the system works for mixed scenes.
I think it was Matt King who once said people should accept the whole photographic system requires burning highlights in, instead of being a perfect system for straight prints.

 

[MattKing]

I think it was Matt King who once said people should accept the whole photographic system requires burning highlights in, instead of being a perfect system for straight prints.

More accurately, the basic recommendations will give you good quality straight prints if the scene and the light on it is average.
If you expose for the shadows, and the SLR (sometimes referred to as SBR) is anything different from average, then you should expect to use darkroom manipulations - like burning in highlights - to maximize your print quality.
I have some really fun black and white prints on one of our walls of the young Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip at a hydro-electric dam opening in Ontario, Canada - likely in 1959. They were shot by my uncle, who was chief photographer at Ontario Hydro, most likely with something like a Speed Graphic.
They are clearly production prints - they vary slightly in their quality.
Most importantly for this discussion, they appear to be straight prints. They exhibit a nice range of tones, and probably come from generously exposed 4x5 negatives. As grain wasn't a concern, I wouldn't expect that agitation was gentle. They may very well have been processed in a commercial, deep tank line or machine.
Many of the Kodak recommendations - and the Ilford recommendations too - would have been oriented to just such an environment.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

When I cursed the career in Photography (film exclusively) I was taught to do straight prints only: no dodging and no burning. I enjoy that more than using the printing stage to change the tonal values of my negative...
I was told with correct exposure and development, dodging, burning, and split contrast printing were not necessary.
Beyond all possibilities we have while printing, I enjoy seeing my materials work well for straight prints.

 

[MattKing]

I was told with correct exposure and development, dodging, burning, and split contrast printing were not necessary.

That is only correct if you also supply and control the lighting (i.e. you work in the studio).
Outside that controlled environment, you can either make compromises with straight prints or use manipulations.
Although sometimes you get lucky.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Would you forum members say the photographs by most relevant masters, like Nadar, Atget, Cartier-Bresson, Frank and Winogrand, are more about manipulations during the printing stage than about the scenes and our society? I would say most of best photographs in photography history are great even if a straight print is made. No compromise in my opinion: photography is not about painting in the darkroom.
Painting in the darkroom -making a print that doesn't represent our negative's tonal values- is not real photography. That's for photographs without content, and for people who don't seek content. Commonly, that's what photographers who can't do great photographs end up doing.
Of course I know the limits of our materials, I see them, 35 years and counting, but when negatives are well exposed and well developed, the printing stage is secondary: it just has to be well done, by anyone, and then the system works well with very little dodging and burning, or with no manipulation at all. I mean, healthy, photographic, is not trying to show on paper what's not in the negative: focusing in the printing stage is naive and gross.
There are two different things: one is using the darkroom to make prints that show reality as it is, and a very different one is using the darkroom to make prints that are a novelty, a tonal surprise, a localized contrast parade of dodging and burning in the surface because there's no depth: nothing to look at or think about below the surface.
That happens a lot, and those people are common, but real masters are scarce. Masters are masters when they press the shutter, not when they print.
This is my opinion only, well, it's my masters' opinion too, but nothing personal against any Photrio Forum member, of course.
I guess most of us think more or less the same way.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

About this thread's subject, I found I like D-76 stock for soft light better than D-76 1+1, so I use that developer pure for most of my rolls. Intense Kodak agitation works well in that case.
But when I do direct sunlight scenes only, I prefer 1+2 with reduced agitation: no doubt about both cases.
A third case is this thread's case:
What's better if we mix all types of contrast scenes in the same roll?
I like to use 240ml of D-76, so adding 360ml of water I get 600ml of a 1+1.5 solution that's kind on sunny highlights, but strong enough for soft light. It worked well for me in the past. And I can use that amount of solution no matter if the film is 35mm or 120.
Today I'll test 11 minutes at 21 Celsius, 1+1.5 (240ml+360), 30 seconds initial gentle agitation, 2 gentle inversions every minute. That's for a condenser enlarger.
I have to care about sunny highlights more than it's usual, because I'm trying to make the system work well at 640 instead of 400, and I don't like Kodak's recommendation of using the same development time for 400 and 800: I understand they want people to keep grain small and sunny scenes with ok highlights, but I prefer a negative with middle grays in their place, so I develop accordingly. My development is just very slightly longer: film is fine after that, even for sunny highlights, and there's no problem with today's multigrade paper as far as I can see.
So, my take on this is: Kodak's agitation (8 inversions every 30 seconds) is a bit too much for mixed scenes at the higher general contrast 640 implies. But my system is very close to Kodak's: just a little less light, and because of that, just a little more development, and just a little less agitation.
Pretty common.

 

[MattKing]

As the negative is only an analogue of the tonal values in the scene (and a reversed analogue at that), and the print is only an analogue of the tones in the negative (and again a reversed analogue at that), there is no more reality inherent in a straight print than in a well manipulated print.
If your goal is to mimic reality as close as you can - which is what I think you are saying your goal is, you will need all the controls available to you - control of light, control of subject, control of camera settings, control of exposure, control of developing and control of tones at the printing stage.
Agitation only affects one of those many variables.

 

[cliveh]

I agitate continually for the first 30 seconds and then 10 seconds in each remaining minute.

 

[awty]

If you shooting on a bright sunny day with trix it may benefit with a little less agitation and maybe less developing so you dont start blocking up the highlights.
On indoor low contrast scenes the opposite might help.

Its a great skill to learn how to effectively dodge and burn etc. those who cant are usually the ones who are dismissive of it.

The photographers you mentioned probably paid someone to develop their film and to print, who were most likely masters of the art and would of dodge and burned as they felt fit to make their clients work look good.
All the popular modern street type photographers edit their work, don't think you can be taken too seriously if you didn't.
The only one who cares about the way you process your film is yourself, so do what pleases you.

 

[Auer]

I agitate continually for the first 30 seconds and then 10 seconds in each remaining minute.

Same. I use a Jobo 1500 so just inversions tho.

In the Lab-Box I go continuous.