• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

how to make fomapan 100 or 200 look 'like tri-x"?

chris77 said:
i am aware that this new tri x has been reformulated before. i honestly dont care.
tri x - as i know it (120) - is a wonderful film.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Perhaps, the conversation would be more fruitful if the OP defined exactly what he means by "The Tri-X Look" .

What is it that you seek? What, for you, characterizes "The Tri_X Look"?

Tri-X is very versatile and can look like many things depending upon how it is exposed and developed....
 

Yeah and now you’re giving recomendations? By the way what’s with the similar look thing? Use trix for a trix look, what else?
 

Yeah and now you’re giving recomendations? By the way what’s with the similar look thing? Use trix for a trix look, what else?
 
You may or may not be able to get that look by varying exposure, developers, temperature, agitation, and time. That doesn't mean you can't have fun trying.

Experiment: 1/2 time in very warm developer and 1/2 time in cool developer (adjust time for avg temp) - or partially develop in two different developers with water stop in between.
Maybe 1/2 time normal dev, then let stand in more dilute developer.

Additionally, You can re-work the developed film by bleaching and redeveloping in a different developer, use intensifiers that add more silver to the film, make masks, use toners, etc...
If you have the patience for experimentation you might be able to adjust the films curve/grain and find something new or different that works for you.
 
thanks! good input here.
 
This morning I was looking at a TX print and comparing it with a similar subject from the same location printed from TMY, likewise 120 film. I liked the bold TX blacks, and realized that I'd achieved a similar look before by underexposing TMY sheet film a full stop (ASA 400), then overdeveloping it. The problem with roll film is that you have to develop the whole roll the same, and this particular "look" might not be suitable for every frame.
 
 
Making one film supposedly look like another by scanning and digitizing it is like curing your dog of scratching fleas by putting him in a microwave oven for ten minutes.
 
I remember real Tri-X . 1970's 35mm Nikon F2, grain! When T-max and XTOL came out it was a miracle. My guess would be to take your Foma, push it to 3200 in straight D-76 . You might need some ND filters to operate in daylight. I don't scan. I print using traditional methods. I would enjoy FP4+ or the Foma options as is. If you want reticulated emulsion, you might be able to do this by hot then cold water baths. Modern film emulsions are hard.
 
DREW WILEY said:
Making one film supposedly look like another by scanning and digitizing it is like curing your dog of scratching fleas by putting him in a microwave oven for ten minutes.
Click to expand...

 
It seems clear that the Ilford data sheet for Perceptol makes no recommendation about minimum quantities per roll when using developers one-shot.
It only makes capacity recommendations relevant to those who re-use the developer.
And recommendations about re-using developer probably only give good hints about the capacity of the same developer used one shot, because different developers are likely to respond differently to the build-up of developer byproducts.
It will be interesting to see if Harman actually has an answer - they and their predecessors may have not tested for the question, because they may not have expected people to use Perceptol in small volume applications like rotary processing.
 
 
I guess the play with Fomapan 100 / Fomapan 200 AND tri - x is to be appraised from the following :

1) concerning developers
2) concerning workflow
3) concerning printing/scanning

So a special look is reachable with Foma 200 AND tri - x but with different methods/developers!

BTW : is there a special look with tri-x ? Not from my point - there is more a tendency of
tri - x in concern of each photographers special workflow!
So many photographers may speak about tri - x characteristics but actual mean
tri - x from a special workflow with some good developer combinations!

with regards
 
Aha - OK there are some posts concerning scanning!
The scanning workflow in general may create a software based "look - like" manipulation (after
scanning) but then this manipulation is also with digital shots!

The best is to look at tri - x's characteristics with own(used) developer combination and
start to search for films wich have simular characteristics with same developer!

with regards
 
I think it would be easier the other way around...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register