How to develop for overexposed TRI-X 400? Getting grainy negatives at normal dev time

Tri-X 400 (120) overexposed 2 stops
D-76 1:1 + TF4, 20c/68f at 9m45s

I recently developed some really dense/dark negatives (I was shooting against a white backdrop about 3 feet away from the subject). I developed them normally at 9m45s (TRI-X 400 datasheet), and cant read any text through the dark parts of the negative (it blocks a ton of light when I hold it up). My negative scans are showing that they're much grainier with flatter contrast than my last shoot, where I had the light powered for proper exposure.

My strobe was powered 2 stops higher than normal and I feel I may have either overexposed it, overdeveloped it or both. Is there anything I can do in development to get cleaner negatives (e.g. less time)?

They would print ok with an enlarger.

Decreasing development may help with grain, but you will most likely end up with lower contrast too.

A "fine grain" developer like perceptol would help with the grain, but you will lose both effective film speed and apparent sharpness in the negative - accutance will be decreased.

You need to adjust your lighting, and then expose the film to complement that lighting.

Xtol will deal with grain if you don't mind higher contrast.

Thanks for the replies fellas, but I'm not looking to change my developer, I'm more trying to understand why this happened and how I can avoid it next time. I have already processed very clean negatives with D-76 that I loved, and since my last successful roll (see example in 1st post) I have changed my thermometer (went from Paterson mercury to Weston steel) and boosted my flash power +2 stops. I always thought over-exposure would result in cleaner negatives so this is why I'm confused about this.

Hi Moodlover. It is all a balancing act. The old saying was, "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" and that holds true still today. It is common among Tri-X users to rate the film a stop slower for better shadows and the flexibility of this venerable film allows that. What you have done is one stop further again and with normal development, grain has been excessive. Reducing development time would indeed help and as someone else suggested, Perceptol a speed reducing fine grain developer would also help. It would also benefit you to do some proper film speed tests for your equipment and lighting. Find your personal exposure index and you will have the answer. The late Barry Thornton had some very good advice on film speed and how to find your personal settings. http://www.barrythornton.com/

have you compared the thermometers to see if the temperatures recorded are the same ?
if you like your earlier results, why don't you go back to the exposure values and development values
you were getting before ? development times and temperatures and exposures are not set in stone ..
or if you iike the development you are getting, maybe bracket by 1/2 stops to get an exposure more suited
to your new developer ( if you change it ) and temperatures.
if you print contact prints with light, paper and chemistry, your dense negatives will probably look fine.

good luck !

ps. you might try using old school caffenol c measured with a teaspoon, your negatives might look thinnish
but they will work like a dream ( with an enlarger or electronic thingy ).

Thermometers are very important and do vary considerably and you should use one as a reference point from which to callibrate others. Consistency is key.

John Bragg said:

Hi Moodlover. It is all a balancing act. The old saying was, "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" and that holds true still today. It is common among Tri-X users to rate the film a stop slower for better shadows and the flexibility of this venerable film allows that. What you have done is one stop further again and with normal development, grain has been excessive. Reducing development time would indeed help and as someone else suggested, Perceptol a speed reducing fine grain developer would also help. It would also benefit you to do some proper film speed tests for your equipment and lighting. Find your personal exposure index and you will have the answer. The late Barry Thornton had some very good advice on film speed and how to find your personal settings. http://www.barrythornton.com/

Click to expand...

That's a good idea. How do I develop for the highlights, as in what should my new development time be? 80% of 9m45s (7.8m)? As far as finding a reliable exposure with testing, is it as simple as bracketing multiple flash powers, developing and seeing which gives the best results? Frames that deviate from the ideal exposure should show more grain right?

APUGuser19 said:

I will never again look at or reply to some thread about somebody with a damn scanner.

Click to expand...

That's really harsh and unnecessary. It's 2015, there's many film users presenting their work via the internet, and not just prints. I'm sharing my love for film in a way that tends to MY audience, why is that so wrong?

jnanian said:

have you compared the thermometers to see if the temperatures recorded are the same ?
if you like your earlier results, why don't you go back to the exposure values and development values
you were getting before ? development times and temperatures and exposures are not set in stone ..
or if you iike the development you are getting, maybe bracket by 1/2 stops to get an exposure more suited
to your new developer ( if you change it ) and temperatures.
if you print contact prints with light, paper and chemistry, your dense negatives will probably look fine.

Click to expand...

To be honest I have only the new Weston steel thermometer and have no idea how to compare or calibrate it. The Paterson one that worked great broke on me unfortunately, so I cant use that anymore. I will definitely revert to my older values, thanks.

John Bragg said:

Thermometers are very important and do vary considerably and you should use one as a reference point from which to callibrate others. Consistency is key.

Click to expand...

True, I just wish the glass ones didn't break so easy. Now I don't know what exactly was so good about my last method, it's hard to keep track of everything!

moodlover said:

To be honest I have only the new Weston steel thermometer and have no idea how to compare or calibrate it. The Paterson one that worked great broke on me unfortunately, so I cant use that anymore. I will definitely revert to my older values, thanks.
!

Click to expand...

the easiest way to calibrate the thermomter is to make an ice bath
when it reaches equilibrium it will be 32ºF / 0ºC

put your thermometer in that, see what it reads ... if it is above or below
hold the dial and get a teeny wrench and adjust the hex nut so when you put the
thermometer in the ice bath again it reads the right temperature.


http://www.jag-i.com/thermometers/thermo_4200.htm
has into on adjusting the thermometer


what i would do (seeing you have no idea what your other thermometer was reading to match it )
is bracket your exposures and develop and try to match film you already have and like.
once you get in a ball park, then maybe change how you are processing ( less agitation, less time in developer, warmer/colder &c ) to
match your former development completely. [ read up here on apug about how agitation and development time affects / effects film when it is being developed ]
who knows, maybe you will like something else better when it comes time to make the prints.

personally i can't stand thin negatives , they skann terribly they are a PITA to print.

good luck getting back the look of your olde negatives !

2 stops over exposure w/ Tri-X that is developed normally w/ D76, especially w/ 120 film, is nothing. It's probably advisable actually, or at least by one stop. Lots of people go w/ that. So you either have a development issue, or its the flash deal. Since I know nothing about flash photography, I'm no help on that one.

In the photographs that you posted, the negative on the right appears to have much darker rebates (the clear area of the film where the numbers are and between each frame). Is this just an illusion on screen or could you tell us if there is actually no real difference.

The reason that I ask is that this could indicate several potential problems.

With regard to the comment:

I will never again look at or reply to some thread about somebody with a damn scanner.

Click to expand...

Just ignore him. If you are only using film and then scanning then fine - at least you are helping to keep film on the market. Also, I have had a number of students recently who have booked to test EI and learn to develop film. Each one has solemnly told me that they only want to learn to process film and have no interest in making wet prints. Well EVERY one of these students has now gone on to learn to print and has either their own darkroom now or print in my darkroom under my guidance. So who knows, maybe one day you will also get the bug! Generally, it only takes seeing a few well made fibre prints to awaken their appetite for going beyond scanning.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Bests,

Overexposed TriX comes out flat and grainy like you described. Over development would add to the problem. The development time you cited for D76 1:1 isn't over development in my opinion. Temp would have to have been off by more than 5 degrees F, which is not unheard of among abused darkroom thermometers. I once discovered my faucet thermometer off 5 degrees but I really didn't notice any awful results, just richer looking negatives on the light box. Also, printing overexposed triX doesn't look any better than scanning it; I have a box of that as evidence. Anyhow, besides the above advice, I once had an overexposure malfunction using TriX and fixed it using a product called Formulary Reducer III which is a negative reducer. A tricky process but if you absolutely need to save it...

Two stops over-exposed is still well within the latitude of Tri-X. Many photographs typically over-expose by a stop and develop normally for better tonality.

You can only judge granularity by looking at negatives not positive prints. In a positive what appears as grain is actually the spaces between grains in the negative. In addition judging grain is very subjective and people tend to see what they believe they should see.

scanners have a tough time with dense negatives.

I'm thinking from the original post that this was a mistake during the shoot - the lights were set too hot?

If I have a film shoot that requires much effort or is unrepeatable, I usually grab a DSLR shot - sort of a modern-day polaroid - and look for anything I'm not catching in the viewfinder. Shooting commercially in the film days, with model and stylist costs and time-is-money, that's what polaroid backs were for. And it's amazing how your brain works when you can step back for a minute and gaze about the frame, there's often things to correct like little pings of light, compositional issues or what have you.

For thermometers, accuracy is good but repeatability is king - if your thermometer's off a degree or two, but it's the only one you use, you'll get around the issue. (Unless you're doing E6…)

Still, I sometimes use a digital instant-read in the darkroom (just a fast, $30 cooking pen). The speed and accuracy are kind of cool and they're easy to calibrate.

It is certainly possible that your negative is properly exposed - for the foreground - while the background is over-exposed. An over-exposed background will be grainier.

The solution for that is to adjust the background lighting.

As others have said, a two-stop overexposure with Tri-X shouldn't exceed the latitude of the film, that is, if you're not already over-exposing when you think the exposure is "correct." I have great prints from overexposed Tri-X; negatives so dense that they proper-proof as almost blank white. I could be that the graininess you are seeing is a scanning artifact. As mentioned above, scanners don't do well with denser negatives. Optical printing would likely get you a much better result (hence the "damn scanner" comment above...).

If your film is so overexposed that the highlights have blocked up (i.e., all collected on the shoulder of the film with no separation, which would explain your lower contrast), then there's not a whole lot to do about it. Make the best images you can and/or reshoot. Consider it a lesson on remembering to check the lighting before exposing. You also might want to check your basic metering and exposure techniques, since, if this is indeed the case, you've overexposed 3-4 stops total, which means your "correct" exposure may be over by quite a bit. Read up on finding a personal E.I.

I doubt you are overdeveloping, even if your thermometer is a bit off. The combination of overexposure and using a (damn) scanner is likely the culprit

Do you have the possibility to print optically?

Best,

Doremus

Most scanners claim they can handle 4.0 log Density(they to be able to handle reversal film which may be 3+ log density). A tri-x negative with two stops of over exposure won't be anywhere near that. Infact its probably not more than 2.0 log density.

I conclude from that you need to learn how to use your scanner and image editing software properly.

And if grain from scans is a problem for you then either use a fine grain developer such as perceptol and/or a finer grained (slower) film or if you are always going to be scanning then consider using a chromogenic B+W film such as Ilford XP2 which will scan almost grain free. Any minilab can devlop it for you if you don't want to mess with c41 chemistry.

Doremus Scudder said:

As others have said, a two-stop overexposure with Tri-X shouldn't exceed the latitude of the film, that is, if you're not already over-exposing when you think the exposure is "correct." I have great prints from overexposed Tri-X; negatives so dense that they proper-proof as almost blank white. I could be that the graininess you are seeing is a scanning artifact. As mentioned above, scanners don't do well with denser negatives. Optical printing would likely get you a much better result (hence the "damn scanner" comment above...).

If your film is so overexposed that the highlights have blocked up (i.e., all collected on the shoulder of the film with no separation, which would explain your lower contrast), then there's not a whole lot to do about it. Make the best images you can and/or reshoot. Consider it a lesson on remembering to check the lighting before exposing. You also might want to check your basic metering and exposure techniques, since, if this is indeed the case, you've overexposed 3-4 stops total, which means your "correct" exposure may be over by quite a bit. Read up on finding a personal E.I.

I doubt you are overdeveloping, even if your thermometer is a bit off. The combination of overexposure and using a (damn) scanner is likely the culprit

Do you have the possibility to print optically?

Best,

Doremus

Click to expand...

I totally understand but I don't have the possibility to print right now. It's really not the scanners fault because as I've said I've gotten wonderful results with the last roll which wasn't as dense. I overexposed 2-3 stops this time thinking it would give me cleaner shadow detail but never knew about more grain coming with it so this is definitely news to me!

MattKing said:

It is certainly possible that your negative is properly exposed - for the foreground - while the background is over-exposed. An over-exposed background will be grainier.

The solution for that is to adjust the background lighting.

Click to expand...

I don't think so, the foreground and highlights have just as much grain as the background, which had a much weaker light on it.

M Carter said:

I'm thinking from the original post that this was a mistake during the shoot - the lights were set too hot?

If I have a film shoot that requires much effort or is unrepeatable, I usually grab a DSLR shot - sort of a modern-day polaroid - and look for anything I'm not catching in the viewfinder. Shooting commercially in the film days, with model and stylist costs and time-is-money, that's what polaroid backs were for. And it's amazing how your brain works when you can step back for a minute and gaze about the frame, there's often things to correct like little pings of light, compositional issues or what have you.

Click to expand...

Very possible that the lights were set too hot (metered at f/5.6 when I usually meter at f/2.8), but why would too much light cause overly grainy negatives? It's like the opposite of everything I thought I knew about light-to-noise.

Hatchetman said:

scanners have a tough time with dense negatives.

Click to expand...

Learned this the hard way!

Saganich said:

Overexposed TriX comes out flat and grainy like you described. Over development would add to the problem. The development time you cited for D76 1:1 isn't over development in my opinion. Temp would have to have been off by more than 5 degrees F, which is not unheard of among abused darkroom thermometers. I once discovered my faucet thermometer off 5 degrees but I really didn't notice any awful results, just richer looking negatives on the light box. Also, printing overexposed triX doesn't look any better than scanning it; I have a box of that as evidence. Anyhow, besides the above advice, I once had an overexposure malfunction using TriX and fixed it using a product called Formulary Reducer III which is a negative reducer. A tricky process but if you absolutely need to save it...

Click to expand...

Yes I used the normal development time of 9m45s on my Tri-X 400 but I feel because of the overexposure, that time overdeveloped the whole film. Thankfully I don't need to rescue this film as it's still part of my learning shoots but very good to know reducers exist, very cool info overall thanks!

David Allen said:

In the photographs that you posted, the negative on the right appears to have much darker rebates (the clear area of the film where the numbers are and between each frame). Is this just an illusion on screen or could you tell us if there is actually no real difference. The reason that I ask is that this could indicate several potential problems.

Also, I have had a number of students recently who have booked to test EI and learn to develop film. Each one has solemnly told me that they only want to learn to process film and have no interest in making wet prints. Well EVERY one of these students has now gone on to learn to print and has either their own darkroom now or print in my darkroom under my guidance. So who knows, maybe one day you will also get the bug! Generally, it only takes seeing a few well made fibre prints to awaken their appetite for going beyond scanning.

Click to expand...

Yes I think the darker rebates are an illusion, both of those negatives are exactly the same. The negative is inside its plastic archive sheet so you may notice it looks funny when I hold it up near a wall vs up to a light. About the EI testing: how exactly is it done at home and is it simple? As far as printing goes, it's not that I don't love printing it's just that I'm taking it one step at a time and still learning how to develop first. I will focus on printing next when I am more skillful and have more money to spend.

momus said:

2 stops over exposure w/ Tri-X that is developed normally w/ D76, especially w/ 120 film, is nothing. It's probably advisable actually, or at least by one stop. Lots of people go w/ that. So you either have a development issue, or its the flash deal. Since I know nothing about flash photography, I'm no help on that one.

Click to expand...

Looking at the negatives on the first post, can you judge how many stops its over-exposed? As far as the flash deal, perhaps you can imagine it as the sun but you open your lens 2 stops more than you shouldve.

jnanian said:

the easiest way to calibrate the thermometer is to make an ice bath
when it reaches equilibrium it will be 32ºF / 0ºC

put your thermometer in that, see what it reads ... if it is above or below
hold the dial and get a teeny wrench and adjust the hex nut so when you put the
thermometer in the ice bath again it reads the right temperature.

Click to expand...

What if the ice bath reads colder than 32F on multiple thermometers?

RobC said:

Most scanners claim they can handle 4.0 log Density. A tri-x negative with two stops of over exposure won't be anywhere near that. Infact its probably not more than 2.0 log density.

I conclude from that you need to learn how to use your scanner and image editing software properly.

And if grain from scans is a problem for you then either use a fine developer such as perceptol and/or a finer grained (slower) film or if you are always going to be scanning then consider using a chromogenic B+W film such as Ilford XP2 which will scan almost grain free. Any minilab can devlop it for you if you don't want to mess with c41 chemistry.

Click to expand...

The scanning and developer is not the issue, Ive had perfect results with the same exact D-76 and scan settings adjusted to prevent all clipping. The noise is apparent at all various scan options. These new negatives are almost black and that is the issue. My last roll was thinner, closer to a properly exposed negative and developed/scanned beautifully. I'm trying to troubleshoot without major equipment changes.

Very possible that the lights were set too hot (metered at f/5.6 when I usually meter at f/2.8), but why would too much light cause overly grainy negatives? It's like the opposite of everything I thought I knew about light-to-noise.

You're not comparing light to noise in digital to silver film are you?

Anyway, I think you have the right idea about changing one variable at a time to learn. You processed the film the same as you did the last time but with different results.
What changed? Your exposure. So, repeat but with a bit more attention to the setup.
Do you have a flashmeter to determine your exposure or set the lighting up by eye?

moodlover said:

What if the ice bath reads colder than 32F on multiple thermometers?

Click to expand...

then all those thermometers need to be calibrated ! *

https://www.google.com/search?clien...&oe=UTF-8#q=ice water thermometer calibration

http://www.vldhealth.org/pdf/environmentalpdf/calibrateeng.pdf

* maybe not really, sometimes ice water reads 2 or 3ºC or sometimes at 0ºC

Hmm are you sure it cant read below 32F? I just put all the ice I had into a jug and filled it with cold tap water, let it sit for 5 minutes:



Its reading 25F right now as I edit this*

Edit 2: I threw the ice out and left just the water and it stops at 32F/0C now! Apparently ice is colder than 32F, so we have to measure the water around it - yay for high school knowledge I forgot!

RobC said:

Most scanners claim they can handle 4.0 log Density(they to be able to handle reversal film which may be 3+ log density). A tri-x negative with two stops of over exposure won't be anywhere near that. Infact its probably not more than 2.0 log density.

Click to expand...

Scanning dye based images is one thing; scanning silver images is completely a different thing. Dyes don't scatter the light; silver grains do, making silver images more difficult to scan - especially when they have high density.