There you are , The GreatGasman, there is a Kodak time which I'd go with. If a maker of both the film and the developer has taken the time to do this then the odd favour this being the right timeKodak's datasheet for HC110 lists 4.75 minutes for Tri-X 320, HC-110 dil B, 20C, small tank, Kodak inversion agitation.
The massive dev chart is very useful, but also very frustrating sometimes. There is no sprint standard time listed on the site, but sprint has a time listed on its data sheet.Does this mean that a Kodak film in a Kodak developer does have a time from Kodak?
pentaxuser
I assumed that the OP was developing old roll film. As Kodak doesn't make T-Max 320 in roll film sizes any more, the current KodakTri-X datasheet doesn't list a time for roll film development using small tanks and inversion agitation.Does this mean that a Kodak film in a Kodak developer does have a time from Kodak?
pentaxuser
Thank you very much.Kodak's datasheet for HC110 lists 4.75 minutes for Tri-X 320, HC-110 dil B, 20C, small tank, Kodak inversion agitation.
and as I said- the massive dev chart has no such indications which are which.There you are , The GreatGasman, there is a Kodak time which I'd go with. If a maker of both the film and the developer has taken the time to do this then the odd favour this being the right time
pentaxuser
It's a 220 roll. I developed a roll in d76 1:1 earlier this year, but I've since been converted to hc110. I also do have a few more rolls if this happens to not work out.I assumed that the OP was developing old roll film. As Kodak doesn't make T-Max 320 in roll film sizes any more, the current KodakTri-X datasheet doesn't list a time for roll film development using small tanks and inversion agitation.
If the OP is using sheets than Kodak supplies times for tray, large tank and rotary agitation in the Tri-X datasheet.
I don't trust (as in lack confidence in) the MDC, and will only refer to it when it is the only source of information for some odd combination of developer and film. As an example, I have some very old Neopan 1600 that I would like to develop in replenished X-Tol.The massive dev chart is very useful, but also very frustrating sometimes.
Pretty much my only access to film dev times- outside of photrio, and I don't want to make one of these posts unless I absolutely need to.I don't trust (as in lack confidence in) the MDC, and will only refer to it when it is the only source of information for some odd combination of developer and film. As an example, I have some very old Neopan 1600 that I would like to develop in replenished X-Tol.
Here is a link to the 2007 Tri-X datasheet which does deal with roll film Tri-X 320. and provides the same time: https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f4017-400TX-2007.pdfIt's a 220 roll. I developed a roll in d76 1:1 earlier this year, but I've since been converted to hc110. I also do have a few more rolls if this happens to not work out.
Here's a sample from the d76 roll I shot earlier this year- no idea what the age was, wasn't even wrapped, shot it at iso 80 and used whatever the massive dev chart said for d76 1:1, and the results weren't that badThe last few rolls I had of TXP 320 (220) I used Dilution E HC110 for 7 min, 68-69 deg. f, 30 sec Agitation . Dilution "E" is about 1 part concentrate plus 47 parts distilled water . The film was slightly fogged but not bad for 20 year old film. I'm much slower now and dilution "B" is just a little to fast for me.
Yea, I'll remember this. I just assumed everyone would just go for the standard 68ºf and agitation every 30 seconds. Though I did provide that link for reference.Here is a link to the 2007 Tri-X datasheet which does deal with roll film Tri-X 320. and provides the same time: https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f4017-400TX-2007.pdf
Speaking generally to anyone reading this, it helps to know which format of film (particularly sheet vs. roll), what mode of development and agitation you intend to use, and what your target working temperature is when you ask about development times.
Hope all this helps.
Wish I had some 220 Tri-X
Me neither. Even if I have an odd film - developer combination where there's no official data, I'll just do a clip test until the film becomes reasonably dark and count the time it took. I'll also fix it and eyeball the density against a lamp. If it looks good enough, I'll commit some film to it. I sometimes bracket some shots of a gray card, which also enable me to plot a characteristic curve. It might not be perfectly accurate, but it's useful nonetheless.I don't trust (as in lack confidence in) the MDC, and will only refer to it when it is the only source of information for some odd combination of developer and film...
The next one (whenever that will be), may end up being the 5.5 minute dev time. And though that d76 roll came from a different lot- that one turned out quite nice, for an expired bw film anyway.When Kodak introduced "new" Tri-X some years ago, they updated their recommended developing times. For some reason, the times given for HC-110 were (and are still) WAY off. 4.75 minutes as opposed to 7+ minutes before. In those days, I was using HC-110 in dil. B and at 1+63 from concentrate (not a Kodak dilution) and simply used my older times as starting points for the newer version of the film. They worked just fine.
IM-HO, Kodak's 4.75 minutes is an unreliable recommendation for either the old or the newer Tri-X. Plus, Kodak gives 4.75 minutes as a recommended time and then, later, recommends against times shorter than five minutes... The old Yellow Mare ain't what she used to be... You're going to most likely have to test to find your own optimum developing time. I'd recommend starting with six minutes or more.
Doremus
The 1999 Kodak recommendations for the old version of Tri-X 320 specified 5.5 minutes, not 7 minutes (20C and Kodak agitation).When Kodak introduced "new" Tri-X some years ago, they updated their recommended developing times. For some reason, the times given for HC-110 were (and are still) WAY off. 4.75 minutes as opposed to 7+ minutes before. In those days, I was using HC-110 in dil. B and at 1+63 from concentrate (not a Kodak dilution) and simply used my older times as starting points for the newer version of the film. They worked just fine.
The 1999 Kodak recommendations for the old version of Tri-X 320 specified 5.5 minutes, not 7 minutes (20C and Kodak agitation).
That is probably where the 5.5 minute recommendation in the MDC came from - it was for the older version of the film.
It was the older version of the 400 ISO version of that, 20 years ago, had a recommended time of 7.5 minutes.
Nope, everything's alright, But I am going to try a longer dev time whenever I get to the next roll.Matt,
I'm sure you're right. My personal time was closer to 7 min (tray developing and likely to a higher contrast gradient for diffusion sources). Or maybe I just don't remember correctly.
Sorry if I mucked up the works for the OP:
Doremus
Out of curiosity, how exactly is the film "badged"? I'm wondering if the film is old enough that the 1999 datasheet should be used (5.5 minutes) rather than the 2007 datasheet (4.75 minutes).Nope, everything's alright, But I am going to try a longer dev time whenever I get to the next roll.
I have the box, but the expiration was torn off, but I remember the seller indicated the film probably expired in the late 80s to early 90s. I don't have the box with me right now, so I also can't reference it.Out of curiosity, how exactly is the film "badged"? I'm wondering if the film is old enough that the 1999 datasheet should be used (5.5 minutes) rather than the 2007 datasheet (4.75 minutes).
Thank you again- this really helps. I also didn't mention I previously developed a roll from this lot in Sprint standard sometime early 2019 and got a similar result. But yea, it's good to know the difference.That appears to be the Tri-X Pan Professional referred to here: https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f9-Tri-X_Pan-199906.pdf
So definitely the 5.5 minute recommendation.
My apologies for not asking about the "vintage" earlier, because my first advice probably ended up misleading you.
The newer, 4.75 minute stuff is badged Kodak Professional Tri-X 320. You can see the difference in the wrappers in the 2005 version of the datasheet f4017: https://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f4017-400TX-2005.pdf
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?