How's My Reversing? (Tri-X Reversal 7266 in D19)

Tri-X Reversal in D19. New EI/dev time tests. Stock at 20C.

You can see that even by 12m I have just reached a usable 100ASA. Increasing from 4m to 8m appears to give a one stop speed increase, The step from 8m to 12m did't gain that much. I estimate that I need 16m to get 200ASA.

The standard (most common) times for this combination seems to be 200ASA dev'd for 6-7mins in stock solution (source: numerous internet samples and anecdotal evidence even on this forum).

Why do I appear to need 2x or 3x the development to get a 'normal' 200ASA result for this film/dev combination?

(And seems interesting in light of the similarly dark positives I was consistently getting from Tri-X 35mm tested in PQ and Liquid Dektol)

Could there be something I am getting consistently wrong in my process (Permanganate bleach/Clearing sol from Foma kit. Same developer at half duration for 2nd dev)?

[You should be able to click through these to get zoomed in version:]

View attachment 65613


View attachment 65614

NB. Let me add that I'm pleased to be getting towards decent results but feel that something doesn't quite add up.

looks like between 8 and 12 minutes at ei 100 is good middle grey is in the middle

looks like 10 minutes should be about right. try that.

You also may want to try 1:1 diluition for 10 minutes--it sounds counterintuitive, but some developers need to be dliuted with water to get more power.

don't worry about them other people's times...this is why people give up. everyone elses times always 6 minutes. the 6 minutes is for people adding hypo probably. stay away from that for now. You are on the RIGHT track experimenting with times higher than what other people say. Anything like over 10 minutes, watch for fog developing and overall dmax being lost. just increase the times till your happy or till you start to see ill effects of dmax reduction from developing fog due to too long in the developer.

more diluted may give you a more pleasing contrast too--that may be playing tricks with your eyes as well....

Also--you CAN try to recover some speed by using a ferricyanide (dilute) bleach step after processing if your results are too dark. You can save underexposed film that way--AGAIN at the expense of dmax.

you may want to take pictures of a face or hands or something when you test for a better reference.

actually--on second looking...the 8 minutes looks good per the greyscale

johnie,

thanks, that's a lot of ideas. There are two that interest me to start with.

1. 'everyone elses times always 6 minutes. the 6 minutes is for people adding hypo probably'

Can I ask what you meant (there was a url link here which no longer exists) in a discussion of Tri-X Reversal in D19, when you said of yourself using D19 to process Tri-X Super 8 :

'I used d-19 to develop --- straight d-19 for 6' about' ?

I presumed that you meant you were using it without hypo there. What EI index did you get at 6 mins when you recommended that time?

2. 'it sounds counterintuitive, but some developers need to be dliuted with water to get more power'

Yes, it does a bit. Can anyone else confirm this?

(btw, I started at 1+1 for 4mins and got very dark positives compared to 1+0 at 4mins)

SEE. It's insidious. 6 minutes should be the STARTING point. This is why forums take forever to get an answer and if someone's face to face they can say HEY what do you mean 6'...and you can clarify immediately. This is for a good reason--shorter dev times start to make fill/empty times significant--so you need a decent development time mixture for uniformity. Anyways--for TXR super 8, 6 minutes WAS working with NO hypo. Memory does say it was straight d-19--as mixed from the powder--NO HYPO. Maybe it was done at 75 degrees? For sure now 75 degrees f for processing is standard these days since the water temperature in summer goes up and it's difficult to keep 68 degrees in summer. 75 degrees has the effect of longer time at 68 degrees. Perhaps that's what is going on here. It's been 10 like years since last super 8 processing.

Last months experiments with iilford pq universal showed that dilution from 1:9 to 1:4 kept increasing in strength but from 1:4 to 1:3 to 1:2 to 1:1 got progressively weaker in their action for the same development times. D-19 was used though at 1:1 to decent results. If you're getting diluted stuff weaker, then leave it in longer and compare the results--they may be more pleasing.

the main rule is, don't listen to other people's times and exposures--they are only starting points--they have different water and may be using different temperature AND they may be overexposing or you may be underexposing--nobody's meters are the same. Nobody's cameras are the same either. Old super 8 cameras and shutter accuracy--partucluarly for single frame--that's always suspect too.

just don't get skimpy on the exposure--if ei 50 looks good to you then THATS's your speed. Box says 200...that don't mean you're doing something wrong. The 200 could be some test with results you don't find pleasing. You are doing just fine but you keep letting written numbers give you doubt. you SEE your results. too dark, your results say more development time will solve that--or more exposure--why look to what it's 'supposed to be'. You can not do anything new if you strive to get the same results of others--get the look YOU want and do what you have to do in order to get it--not matter how much you feel "cheated" on film speed. Get something that works robustly and repeatedly. Looks like your set here. If you want a more brightness or more "speed" try ferricyanide by inspection rather than hypo in the deveoper in the dark.

And say you send the film out and you're getting good results from the lab at ei 200--well, the process they use in machines cannot be duplicated with a tank easily or at all. Them machines use a fast process with hypo in the deveoper to speed up the process. The machine has WAY more control/precision than you--if you want machine results you need a machine. OR you must practice practice practice...and may never get it to work reliably.

NOTE--when all is said and done, movie film IS best done on a machine specially built to process movie film. You can't beat the machine--nobody can. If you take into consideration your time, you'll see that machine is usually winning out on cost too. BUT, it's understandable--you see others have done it and YOU want to do it. Once you get your process down it starts to turn into real work/drudgery...thatmachine starts too look very attractive--you no longer feel inadequate to have a machine do the work when you KNOW that you can do it if you have to. Still though--the movie film processing rig has not been thrown out....no matter how disused it's been...

I just checked the tri x reversal data sheet--the EI is 160 for tungsten--did you use continuous lighting on that? if so, you're right there. If strobe or sunlight, ok...still lacking a bit in speed. Still need speed? then try longer/hotter development till you get it. Or do a post bleach bath to your desired density BEFORE you start the hypo concoctions--you can see the bleach work and do more if not enough...the dev step, you're stuck with what you got.

If you don't want to use a more concentrated developer and you don't want to increase time/temperature of the first dev, then trying a silver halide solvent would be easier than adding another bleach step (which implies using a clear bath after) after 2nd developer. This will reduce the density a little (which you want) creating a brighter image.
Once in the ballpark of the right amount to add (usually between 1 and 5g/L), you can even control the ''tone'' of the image. If the scene is contrasty add a little less and increase 1st dev time, if it is not contrasty enough add a little more and decrease 1st dev time.
That's what I've been learning since a few weeks and it works for me. Silver halides aren't necessary, but they can make things easier...

FERRICYANIDE BLEACH AND FIX. you can remove developed silver by inspection a little at a time till you get what you want. If you want more contrast, you can actually underexpose on purpose just to bleach later to pump up the contrast.

I'd Stay away from the hypo in the first developer....

Thanks for the encouragement, guys. I've been looking at my camera shutter speeds and reading the literature so have been quiet on this. I've come to decision on Tri-X Reversal 7266.

After work commitments I have limited time. Tri-X experiments are now becoming an impediment to my project and my pleasure. It's a drain on time and energy and not giving anything back.

I've followed the processes that other have used successfully (Rodinal and D19 for example and I also tested PQ and Polymax(Dektol) ) and just not got the results. I do believe it should be possible to replicate other's process within acceptable limits. With the speed loss i am seeing, it looks likely that I am doing something wrong but still do not know what but can't expend more time worrying about it.

Thanks both for your ideas above, but I feel that I cannot spend another two weeks testing new chemicals* and processes as a workaround to fix something that should work without – and has worked without for many people. When I used Tri-X Super 8 many years ago with the Tetenal Reversal kit it was great. It looked wonderful and worked first time and every time. Today, at this particular moment, processing Tri-X Reversal film feels like flogging a broken horse from where I am.

But I do have to develop the film myself for the pleasure (I actually enjoy it) and the process. It really needs to be part of my film work. So I'm looking at reversal films like Scala 200x and Adox Pan-X 100 to get out of this fruitless Tri-X loop, at least for the time being. I already have a cartridge of Adox Pan-X Reverso in the fridge and might run a few test strips this weekend. If that also fails then my method is wrong somewhere and I need to look at that again. If it succeeds then Pan-X might be a better short to mid term solution leaving the Tri-X Reversal mystery behind me.

(Also I have been hoping that Adox will get their Pan-X Reverso reversal kit out soon)

-> Johni

The speed rating of TriX Reversal is not really an issue. Tri-X is panchromatic, afaik. The dual film speed rating is surely to account for cameras which have a tungsten 85a filter built in. The Tri-X cart auto switches it out on my camera. But I'm also exposing manually with a Weston using incident reading and using 32k Bowens light.

My camera shutter speed at 18fps single frame is accurate and so is my Weston meter tested against two camera meters. So I still read my best result as 100ASA at 12mins max strength developer. So if I can only get 50-100ASA from Tri-X I might just as well use another true reversal film. One with a clear base, to boot.

-> Tofek

*With what you explained to me and now I've read the document 'A Black&White Reversal Process In Memory Of Agfa Scala 200x' I think I'm much clearer on the silver solvent question. It's more important with low speed films. I think with a fast film like Tri-X and it's thin emulsion it only serves to make the whole image too weak at 1st dev stage.

'The amount of silver solvent needed depends on the amount of silver halide in the film and the strength of first development. In principle, lower speed films contain a higher amount of silver halide; they are more capable to build maximum densitiy in the negative. A lower amount of developer concentrate in the first developer creates a softer negative image and leaves more unused silver halide requiring more silver solvent and vice versa.'

mr.datsun said:

The speed rating of TriX Reversal is not really an issue. Tri-X is panchromatic, afaik. The dual film speed rating is surely to account for cameras which have a tungsten 85a filter built in. The Tri-X cart auto switches it out on my camera. But I'm also exposing manually with a Weston using incident reading and using 32k Bowens light.

Click to expand...

In fact b&w film is less sensitive to tungsten light than to daylight. Like Fomapan, it is 80ASA in tungsten light. It has nothing to do with 85 filter.

mr.datsun said:

*With what you explained to me and now I've read the document 'A Black&White Reversal Process In Memory Of Agfa Scala 200x' I think I'm much clearer on the silver solvent question. It's more important with low speed films. I think with a fast film like Tri-X and it's thin emulsion it only serves to make the whole image too weak at 1st dev stage.

'The amount of silver solvent needed depends on the amount of silver halide in the film and the strength of first development. In principle, lower speed films contain a higher amount of silver halide; they are more capable to build maximum densitiy in the negative. A lower amount of developer concentrate in the first developer creates a softer negative image and leaves more unused silver halide requiring more silver solvent and vice versa.'

Click to expand...

Yes but currently your film is too dark, so you want to reduce density somehow, possibly with with silver halide solvents.

I'm looking forward to your tests with Adox PanX !!

Tofek said:

In fact b&w film is less sensitive to tungsten light than to daylight. Like Fomapan, it is 80ASA in tungsten light. It has nothing to do with 85 filter.

Click to expand...

I read that somewhere but then I wondered why negative films do not, to my knowledge, have those same dual speed daylight/tungsten ratings?

Tofek said:

Yes but currently your film is too dark, so you want to reduce density somehow, possibly with with silver halide solvents.

I'm looking forward to your tests with Adox PanX !!

Click to expand...

Well, in my case even minute amounts of the silver solvent solution seemed to reduce density evenly all over the tonal range without any increase in contrast. That paper seemed to offer an explanation to me but I may be interpreting it incorrectly.

Yes, I'm looking forward to the Pan-X tests. When I have something to show, I'll post.

I think negative behaves the same as reversal with tungsten light and daylight except the difference isn't that noticeable since negative is very forgiving. For example the sensitivity of Efke emulsions was for tungsten light, and not daylight : you had to underexpose by one stop in daylight. I didn't know it at the time when I used some but I have great prints from it. The negatives are bullet proof though, especially in scenes under bright sun...

Film speeds are different for different light sources INDEPENDENT of the filters. That 160 has nothing to do with what the camera built-in filter does. It looks like you're getting over 100 asa with 12 minutes. Even at 100--100 ASA is pretty close to 160 -- this is only 2/3 of a stop "loss" and may very well be within experimental error for meter/shutter/other things. Seems to me it's working just fine. Have you compared to lab results to be sure of your exposure? If you pick up this experiment anytime, it may be best to first do a baseline with lab results so you can see what the "best" is to expect with your equipment. I think I get over a one stop "drift" among my different 35mm cameras when doing e-6 film. Each camera must use a different film speed to get the same results because of different meters, lens transmissions, shutter speeds, other things I can't account for.

Lab to compare with will give apples to apples, as it were. Right now you're comparing to an unknown and maybe unrealistic standard.

Sorry to hear you're packing it in....

Tofek said:

I think negative behaves the same as reversal with tungsten light and daylight except the difference isn't that noticeable since negative is very forgiving. For example the sensitivity of Efke emulsions was for tungsten light, and not daylight : you had to underexpose by one stop in daylight. I didn't know it at the time when I used some but I have great prints from it. The negatives are bullet proof though, especially in scenes under bright sun...

Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that one up. I was confused.

johnielvis said:

Film speeds are different for different light sources INDEPENDENT of the filters. That 160 has nothing to do with what the camera built-in filter does. It looks like you're getting over 100 asa with 12 minutes. Even at 100--100 ASA is pretty close to 160 -- this is only 2/3 of a stop "loss" and may very well be within experimental error for meter/shutter/other things. Seems to me it's working just fine. Have you compared to lab results to be sure of your exposure? If you pick up this experiment anytime, it may be best to first do a baseline with lab results so you can see what the "best" is to expect with your equipment. I think I get over a one stop "drift" among my different 35mm cameras when doing e-6 film. Each camera must use a different film speed to get the same results because of different meters, lens transmissions, shutter speeds, other things I can't account for.

Lab to compare with will give apples to apples, as it were. Right now you're comparing to an unknown and maybe unrealistic standard.

Sorry to hear you're packing it in....

Click to expand...

Thanks - I'm clear on the film rating issue now.

Yes, a lab processed Tri-X might be good idea as a benchmark.

I've got 4 carts of Tri-X in the fridge - so i'm not really saying goodbye, Tri-X, so much as 'Au revoir Tri-X and bon matin, Pan-X'.

The change might shed some new light on my processing.

I got to the storage area and found the olde reversal process book photocopies. The process for Kodak d-94 reversal first developer is 1.5 minutes at 72 degrees F. This developer is very powerful and has hypo in it as well as sodium sulfite for silver solvants.

Home processing done at such a fast speed, with filling/emptying will surely mess up any uniformity in the process. This is a powerful developer that goes in and WHAM hits that film like a hammer and then gets out quickly. This likely results in a higher effective speed. What I think is going on here is that the developer gets in and develops the exposed stuff very quickly and aggressively--the unexposed stuff takes time to start developing fog to ruin your dmax. If you use a hotter, stronger developer, it has the effect of getting the development done before the fog can catch up. If you use a weaker developer at colder temperature for a longer time, then the fog can catch up and ruin your dmax. So to get the same dmax with a weaker development, you must sacrifice some speed.

2/3 stop ain't much.

You are going to have to live with the limitations of your processing equipment, I'm afraid.....unless you want to build a special machine. You want to go to the moon, you're not going to do it with junkyard materials...you can maybe build an airplane or balloon though.....

I don't think that the loss of speed due to fog being developed in the 1st dev. If fog had been created in the 1st dev, it would have been bleached away thus resulting in a brighter image. It's the opposite.
It is rather that all the negative silver isn't developed and thus isn't bleached. There are some silver halides left in the transparent parts because they haven't been developed as negative. The fog is created in the 2nd dev, because too much silver is left in these transparent parts. That's why a silver halide solvent would help to gain speed.

So I went back on my word. I just finished the 16 minute test before I do the Pan-X. Just to call it a wrap.

Tri-X Reversal. D19 1+0 , 16 minutes 1st / 8 minutes 2nd.

Here's the news. Nothing to be gained between 12 and 16 minutes. 100 ASA is still the best result but probably not as good as 12. More contrast and tones crunched.

But then there was only little improvement/difference to the 100ASA exposure between 8 mins and 12 mins so I was kind of expecting it.

200ASA more usable but the bottom 3 zones are more or less combined flat black.

I'll post the scans next week.

I think I might try johnielvis' suggestion of the weaker solution when I get the time. I reckon take the 8min version as a plateau and run it diluted at 1+1 for 16m.

In the meantime Pan-X tests have started and are moving into the silver solvent stage next. I feel happier having two emulsions under test as one is more likely to yield results and that will take me into production sooner.

I think I said before that anything past 10 minutes is not worth doing since the fog starts to develop. I was hoping you'd try 10 minutes at a higher temperature like 75 degrees, say? Instead of cold at higher time. It appears to me that the increased temperature gets more WHAM at the beginning. It's like you CAN'T make up for less active developer by developing for longer times--there's a certain activity level you need.

Before you go with the solvants, there's D-11 and D-8 developers also--much stronger than d-19. You can also goose d-19 by adding more carbonate or caustic soda to make it more powerful--or use it at a hotter temperature. Note that no reversal labs use 68 degrees..they run higher and sometimes very high temperatures. Higher temperature developer for a shorter time does not behave the same as the savve developer when it's cold for a longer time. When you're doing "extreme" developing like this, the "reciprocity" of time and temperature seems to get left behind--like film for very long exposures..it acts differently.

Before you try to do solvant blindy in the first dev, I'd suggest you do it with ferricyanide bleach--you can take your current results and slowly dissolve the silver on them to "develop by inspection". It works and it's more controllable when you can see what you're doing. That hypo in the develeloper is hard to guage since there's 2 things going on at once. You won't lose any more silver than the hypo in the developer will take away--nothing to lose.

Anyways--I still firmly believe that hypo in the developer is unnecessary and therefore should be avoided.

I believe that stronger, more active developer is the way to go--you can see from your results--more power is the key--you just need more horsepower in that 10 minutes--higher temperature? more carbonate? D-11?--you have the luxury of time to develop--unlike labs that develop MILES of film--their processes must be set up for minimum time. You need a process that takes like 10 minutes to promote uniformity and to lessen the effects of filling/emptying. Even 6 minutes is pushing it pretty quick...that's why it's the starting point for this type of work.

johnielvis,

D19:
in agreement with your comment - after my Pan-X test - I too was beginning to think that D19 is just not active enough. I've got a good image starting (after using hypo to clear the base silver) but only at 50ASA with 12mins of development. The 100 ASA exposure is unusable.

(With regards your 10 minutes rule - I absolutely could not get noticeable fogging with Tri-X. Pan-X is another story.)

I was loath to start using higher temperatures but I might give it a shot.

Hypo/Silver Solvent:
Working out the right relationship between developer strength/time and hypo qty does look slightly like trial and error. But I got nothing useable in Pax-X until I added it.

Even though it did not seem to suit Tri-X specifically, I'm not sure why you say hypo should be avoided though, as even Kodak put it in their d94a. It's also what what i can see in every reversal recipe in the literature.

mr.datsun said:

johnielvis,

Even though it did not seem to suit Tri-X specifically, I'm not sure why you say hypo should be avoided though, as even Kodak put it in their d94a. It's also what what i can see in every reversal recipe in the literature.

Click to expand...

Like I said before--those formulae are for tightly controlled machines--VERY SHORT processing times...a couple of minutes max. In my experience, I could never get the silver solvent in the developer to work reliably. Maybe you can, but I've stopped trying (at least until I get or build a film processing machine)--right now I'm doing hand processing/tubes. So for my processing methods, I've found silver solvent in developer is not a sufficiently repeatable process for me. I have found that when I screw up exposure and get a transparency that is "too dark", that I can fix it with ferricyanide bleach (if it isn't too bad). I go for "old reliable" methods that you can not do for a couple of months and start right in and process without screwing up because you're "out of practice". This IS a hobby for me, after all....

Actually--it's more of a laziness thing, come to think of it. I've found that hypo in the developer is not necessary for me to do satisfactory reversal processing. Since it's not necessary, I'm not about to complicate things and add in steps (time, extra work) to my process--each step (measuring, adding another chemical) is also an opportunity for error. So it's a combination of laziness and desire for a very, very robust process with as much "slop" in it as possible. I do admire precision, but precision where it is not necessary is a waste of resources (laziness).

OH...if you want to experiment with the hypo in developer, there is a small book I HIGHLY RECOMMEND called "The Monobath Manual"...it's a VERY good read and will show you the effects of hypo and what to expect in such processes.

johnielvis said:

Like I said before--those formulae are for tightly controlled machines--VERY SHORT processing times...a couple of minutes max. In my experience, I could never get the silver solvent in the developer to work reliably. Maybe you can, but I've stopped trying (at least until I get or build a film processing machine)--right now I'm doing hand processing/tubes. So for my processing methods, I've found silver solvent in developer is not a sufficiently repeatable process for me. I have found that when I screw up exposure and get a transparency that is "too dark", that I can fix it with ferricyanide bleach (if it isn't too bad). I go for "old reliable" methods that you can not do for a couple of months and start right in and process without screwing up because you're "out of practice". This IS a hobby for me, after all....

Actually--it's more of a laziness thing, come to think of it. I've found that hypo in the developer is not necessary for me to do satisfactory reversal processing. Since it's not necessary, I'm not about to complicate things and add in steps (time, extra work) to my process--each step (measuring, adding another chemical) is also an opportunity for error. So it's a combination of laziness and desire for a very, very robust process with as much "slop" in it as possible. I do admire precision, but precision where it is not necessary is a waste of resources (laziness).

OH...if you want to experiment with the hypo in developer, there is a small book I HIGHLY RECOMMEND called "The Monobath Manual"...it's a VERY good read and will show you the effects of hypo and what to expect in such processes.

Click to expand...

Ok. I get it, thank-you. It's better to understand reasons advice then one can choose to follow or not with more confidence.

I'm using Peter Carter's method of the weak hypo solution so hopefully it'll work out more consistent for me in the Pan-X trials.

I'll try and check out Monobath Manual, too. Regards, Mr Datsun.

Alessandro Serrao said:

I'd pay attention to what PE one said on Apug.org about the neccessity of using a silver halide solvent. He's very expert at anything that is chemical related!

Click to expand...

Yes, seems like for johnielvis, is it mainly preference/practicality decision.

Well, not entirely--let me explain a bit better--this "new way" to explain occurred to me:

The film speed for those reversal cine films is not determined for just ANY reversal process, but for those machine processes with very fast acting first developers. Those machine processes are extremely difficult to do with home processing equipment, so there's no point in even trying--not enough "slop" in the process.

That being the case, I decided that I wouldn't even try to compete with the machine or it's tightly controlled process, but, instead, find a process that works with the equipment and time at hand. If "maximum attainable" film speed cannot be achielved, then this is an acceptable trade off--the 2/3 stop or so is not worth the time and expense of buying/maintaing a processing machine that can duplicate the process for which the film was rated.

I tried the hypo and, after reading the monobath book, have determined that hypo processes must be done VERY QUICKLY to keep the hypo "bad effects" from ruining the results. Such short processing times are not worth the bother trying to get them to work--particularly with large sheet films--pretty much impossible to control when you're filling/emptying times are significant compared to the ideal processing times.

Not only that--if you get a process that works for one film using a hypo developer, it likely won't work for another film because of the different effects of different fixing rates. So a more slowly fixed film like tmax will react MUCH differently to a hypo developer than tri-x. However, if a reversal process is based on a first developer with no hypo, then it is more universal in it's application to different films. So you get one process for many films rather than having multiple fussy processes for each different film.

The conclusion I have come to is that hypo in the first developer is just not worth the aggrivation for home processing.

The main point--them reversal film speeds are measured for the MACHINE process--not just ANY reversal process. Hypo is not a "magical ingrediant" that is necessary--it is only necessary for that particular process.

ALSO--hypo first developers generally require the first development to be carried out very quickly for satisfactory results--10 minutes in any hypo first developer will result in way too much silver halide removal-it'll ruin the dmax. So if you can perfect 3 minute first development times, then maybe the hypo first devleoper will work out for you. I don't think any processs which requires hand filling a quart of liquid is going to allow any kind of uniformity/repeatability for a 3 minute process.

You'll see.....it took me years....you'll go throught the same, since you want to learn it yourself, just like I did.

READ THE MONOBATH BOOK.

Johnielvis, I could not have said it better myself.