ilford agitation vs kodak agitation for tri-x

pierods · Feb 16, 2012

Hello,

according to Kodak, tri-x must sit in d-76 stock for 6:45 at 20 C, while inverting a small tank 4 times every 30 seconds.

According to Ilford, id-11 (= d-76) stock for 7:30 at 20C, while inverting a small tank 4 times every minute.

Which process is best for which results?

Thanks.

Neal · Feb 16, 2012

Dear pierods,

It doesn't really matter. The film contrast is increased as time, temperature and agitation are increased. If you are consistent with your agitation and temperature, you will quickly be able to adjust your time once you start printing. If you are consistently forced to go above a number 3 filter then you need to add time. If you are consistently forced to go below a number 2 filter, subtract time. There are quite a few good books that will give you a far better explanation. Usually you can find what you need at a used book store, but there are several good ones still in print.

Neal Wydra

keithwms · Feb 16, 2012

Kodak is agitating me a lot more than Ilford at the moment. Just saying.

Ian Grant · Feb 16, 2012

It's not that critical as long as you're consistent. The dev timeand film speed (EI) ideally need to be to be determined by doing film speed/development testing or at the very least be fine tuned to give you optimum negative contrast and density for your printing. There's other variable like meter calibration, shutter speeds and precision of thermometers etc that may come into play.

Kodak & Ilford don't give times for identical contrast etc they use different ways of determing the gamma/contrast index that's why their recommendations differ.

Personally I do 2 inverasion agitation cycles every 30 seconds for the first 2 minutes then every minute after that.

Ian

Mainecoonmaniac · Feb 16, 2012

Since Kodak is an American company they recommend agitation on the right side, while Ilford being a British company thinks that proper agitation is done on the left side. Americans find the Ilford method is just agitating

Simon R Galley · Feb 16, 2012

I am getting agitated....

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

R.Gould · Feb 16, 2012

I develop tri x in d76 using the ilford method/times for stock great negatives, tried the kodak method and couldn't see any difference between the two.
Richard

Jim Noel · Feb 16, 2012

More time with less agitation = less time with more agitation

jmdco · Feb 16, 2012

Jim Noel said:
More time with less agitation = less time with more agitation

But will favor the appearance of grain. Just as the temperature and time

steven_e007 · Feb 16, 2012

Maybe it isn't a very significant difference?

If you consider the extremes...

advocates of the stand development technique might leave a film undisturbed for hours or even overnight. In dish development or in a processor the film is in motion continuously. If you consider that to be a range of nearly zero to 100% agitated - then 4 inversions every 30s or 4 inversions every minute are both pretty close together somewhere near the middle of the scale.

fotch · Feb 16, 2012

The American method reflects "I am in a hurry" and/or "I want it now".

railwayman3 · Feb 16, 2012

R.Gould said:
I develop tri x in d76 using the ilford method/times for stock great negatives, tried the kodak method and couldn't see any difference between the two.
Richard

I'd agree that, for all practical purposes (as opposed to test charts, densitometers and all the other gubbinses), I doubt that there would be any visible difference. Either agitation method will produce an almost continual movement of the solution, and the slight time difference just reflects the different measuring methods.

Any trivial difference are well within the film latitude to give good results anyway, but you can always fine-tune it for any personal preferences. Like so many things in the analog process, starting from effective film speeds, metering, and through to processing and printing, each user will adjust and finetune with experience to get the results they want. And this won't be the same answer for everyone, as we all have different working methods and preferences.

hvandam2 · Feb 16, 2012

So, to paraphrase P.T. Barnum:
You can agitate some of the film all the time or
you can agitate all film some of the time,
but you can't agitate all of the film all the time...

pierods · Feb 17, 2012

hvandam2 said:
So, to paraphrase P.T. Barnum:
You can agitate some of the film all the time or
you can agitate all film some of the time,
but you can't agitate all of the film all the time...

I like that!

So basically no real difference. No difference for tmax as well?

Steve Smith · Feb 17, 2012

It's the number of time per minute which makes the difference. It doesn't really matter if it's two, three or four inversions each time as it's the first inversion which moves the developer around and puts fresh developer at the emulsion surface. The rest of the inversions are just for peace of mind really.

Steve.

pierods · Feb 17, 2012

Steve Smith said:
It's the number of time per minute which makes the difference. It doesn't really matter if it's two, three or four inversions each time as it's the first inversion which moves the developer around and puts fresh developer at the emulsion surface. The rest of the inversions are just for peace of mind really.

Steve.

I have ALWAYS thought that, but was too lazy to verify.

ilford agitation vs kodak agitation for tri-x

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency