hi doremus
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/
suggests the same thing ... ( even said by people who worked at kodak )
Note about Kodak Tri-X Pan and Plus-X Pan: Kodak's published time for the new 400TX film in dilution B is 3 3/4 minutes at 68 F.
That is too short to be practical, and I think they have made a serious mistake; it looks to me like the time for dilution A. I think they used the wrong dilution in their testing for both 400TX and 125PX.
Numerous photographers tell me that the correct time for 400TX is only a few percent shorter than for the old TX. Even Kodak told me the same thing – though they insist that they didn't mix up the dilutions.
However, it's generally agreed that Kodak's published time of 7.5 minutes for TX in dilution B was a bit long. Most photographers recommend about 6 to 7 minutes.
I want to thank Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadzki (retired from Kodak, part of the team that invented Xtol) for correspondence about this.
They, too, think the wrong dilution was used in Kodak's tests. It will be interesting to see if the published time changes in future Kodak publications.
and as usual if you look at the PDF kodak put out for the developer and films
http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/j24.pdf
they list 3 different tri x films
and times ranging from 3.75 mins to 7.5 mins @68ºF
of course with the disclaimer that short developing times might give bad results
Note: Tank-development times shorter than 5 minutes may produce unsatisfactory uniformity.
what i find to be weird is they even publish these extremely short times
That's a negative I can get behind! A DR of 3 or so and start 'em with lots of shadow detail. It takes up to an two hour exposure under a 750W merc vapor lamp, but it gets it done!
Can't see thru the highlights? Get ya a brighter light! Here is a 4x10 carbon print from a nice beefy negative (and developed in a pyro developer, too)...the kind of negative that silver gelatin paper wimpers and runs away from!
couldn't agree with you more ! but unfortunately the OP is scanning 35mm film directly ( i think ? ) so he can't enlarge/print them with an merc vapor lamp
i get similar negatives and contact them with rc paper and a 300 watt bulb, or when i get low tech, i use the sun. no darkroom required! the sun is typically a couple of day exposure
and i scan the POSITIVE. i've made and scanned contact prints doing this too.
====
rattymouse
im sorry to say this, but the best way to deal with new tri x film contrast is to leave it sitting around for
a few years unrefrigerated. let it "ripen" a little bit and in the aging process it will dampen the contrast
YMMV