Information about current TX400 in direct sunlight?

[Juan Valdenebro]

I got a couple of 100 ft. rolls of Tri-X and a few 120 rolls, so I decided to be ready for direct sunlight too: something I do with HP5+ often, but not with TX.
Until today, I think I never used TX for a direct sunlight scene in my life, so this is my first time...
Today I started testing D-76 1+2 and 1+3 at 22C with a few different times and exposure indexes...
I think in my first test I didn't get good shadow detail: not even at 200... So I did a second test...
Is someone using Tri-X400 for sunny scenes?
Any link to some discussion or essay on sunny Tri-X? I couldn't find anything...
I remember I've read -a few times- comments on how unexpectedly slow Tri-X can be for rich shadows in high contrast, and today I read someone claiming real speed of Tri-X in Xtol doesn't reach 200 for rich shadows, only 160, and in D-76 100 or 80...
I see detail on my negatives (detail in the shadows) only in my shots done at 50 and 100, but close to nothing at 200 (!) and blank shadows at 400...
Film is fresh, and I've used it these days perfectly at 640 and 1600 for overcast and pushing (D-76 and Microphen).
I meter well: my incident sekonic says the same my cameras say for middle reflectance scenes, and my incident reading is the same as my spot metering on well placed gray card...
It's just as if Tri-X was slower now in D-76... I felt the same when I was testing it some days ago for soft light in D-76 1+1...
Is it possible that current Tri-X was in some way optimized for Xtol and then it became a bit slower in D-76?
By the way, all the Tri-X I used in recent years was several years old frozen Tri-X, and it worked well with D-76: I think this is the first time I use current Tri-X, because its numbering and font seemed new to me...
Thanks.

 

[Bill Burk]

I develop Kodak films in D-76 1:1 for 13:30 at 20-degrees C. I consider it by definition to be 400.

Are you developing for less time? That would be my guess.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Not enough time for given agitation pattern and insufficent stock developer for dilutions used could add up to a 20-30% drop in contrast from aim. Dump the grey card and key your detailed shadows with the spotmeter on IRE 10 ('1' on the IRE scale on the Pentax spot meter). Tri-X runs to spec just fine - it's just that you might discover that the times when using diluted developers end up close to HP5+ times.

Bill's times are within a very small tolerance of Kodak's for a CI in the 0.6-0.62 range - and Ilford's times for Tri-X may be based off the previous version and/ or Kodak's suggested CI rather than Ilford's 0.62 G-Bar.

 

[grain elevator]

Are you actually metering the very shadows that you want detail in?

 

[Alan9940]

I shoot 120 Tri-X in the blazing sun of the desert southwest all the time rating it at EI 200 and developing in HC-110(B) for 5.5 mins @ 68F. No complaints with shadow detail.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I develop Kodak films in D-76 1:1 for 13:30 at 20-degrees C. I consider it by definition to be 400.

Are you developing for less time? That would be my guess.

Hello Bill,
Do you mean you develop your Tri-X sunny scenes and your Tri-X overcast scenes using the same development time and the same EI?

(I use Tri-X at 640 for normal overcast, D-76 1+1 22C 11 minutes, agitation every 30 seconds, for condenser, with filter 3 1/2... It seems we're close... But sunlight's deep shadows seem to require another treatment if we want them clean...)

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Not enough time for given agitation pattern and insufficent stock developer for dilutions used could add up to a 20-30% drop in contrast from aim. Dump the grey card and key your detailed shadows with the spotmeter on IRE 10 ('1' on the IRE scale on the Pentax spot meter). Tri-X runs to spec just fine - it's just that you might discover that the times when using diluted developers end up close to HP5+ times.

Bill's times are within a very small tolerance of Kodak's for a CI in the 0.6-0.62 range - and Ilford's times for Tri-X may be based off the previous version and/ or Kodak's suggested CI rather than Ilford's 0.62 G-Bar.

Hello Lachlan, my gray card with spot metering gives me the same metering my incident reading gives me, and both tell me the same values all my cameras tell me: would you mind if apart from dumping Kodak's gray card I dump my sekonic incident and spot meter, and all my cameras too?
By the way, I can shape Tri-X: I can make its highlights higher or lower with agitation and development time, and I can also make its middle grays move up more than enough with dilution and development time: I just saw it today, but shadows are another story completely... Shadows are inexistent at 400.
In my opinion the film is 400 for soft light: and beyond, that's why I use it at 640... But for direct sunlight with rich shadows, metering should be done far from 400... If I meter at 400, shadows are very dark: it could be used at 400 under sunlight just as we use slide film under direct sunlight, composing for the world that's in light, and considering shadows zones that will have close to no detail...
If someone has a few good examples (wet prints scans) of rich shadows from Tri-X under direct sunlight, metering at 400, that's this threads subject...
Or any link to that...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Are you actually metering the very shadows that you want detail in?

Hi grain, in that case I wouldn't be metering at 400, but placing whatever I want in zone III to get that amount of detail: that's a different story, but that's not an ISO400 exposure.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I shoot 120 Tri-X in the blazing sun of the desert southwest all the time rating it at EI 200 and developing in HC-110(B) for 5.5 mins @ 68F. No complaints with shadow detail.

Hello Alan,
Any wet print scan to see those rich shadows not to complain about?

 

[Finn lyle]

I've been using TX400 for my MF black and white work, and don't usually have issues with the shadow detail by metering similarly to the method Lachlan described. No matter what lighting conditions I always develop in HC-110 as well, 6.75 minutes at 70ºf agitating with five inversions in five seconds, once a minute. It is a relatively contrast rich film though, certainly more inky in the shadows than HP5 IMO, and as a consequence you have to make adjustments for clipping that occurs when shadows fall outside that range. Just part of the films character and your method of metering/light averaging. If you always underexpose the film for the light in the shadows by averaging the brightest, direct sunlight then there it's no surprise that your shadows come out clipped. It's always interesting to be reminded just how much less light a light shadow has than sunlight. Here's a scan of a print

taken on Tri-X in bright sunlight for reference, the sunlight was coming through a window which may have muted it somewhat. It was still quite high contrast, the white part of the cat is somewhat blown out. Note the wood detail on the trim, however.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hello Finn, I agree about HP5+ having richer shadows...
How did you meter at 400 while doing that photograph?
Anyway, that's not a real direct sunlight scene where we can check ample zones of shadow detail, and also, the bounced light is filling the scene's shadows to some degree...
And the cat's blown whites seem to indicate exposure was done using an EI well below 400... That's why I asked you why do you consider the scene was exposed at 400...
Thanks!

 

[Bill Burk]

Hello Bill,
Do you mean you develop your Tri-X sunny scenes and your Tri-X overcast scenes using the same development time and the same EI?

(I use Tri-X at 640 for normal overcast, D-76 1+1 22C 11 minutes, agitation every 30 seconds, for condenser, with filter 3 1/2... It seems we're close... But sunlight's deep shadows seem to require another treatment if we want them clean...)

Thanks Lachlan, yes that time is what I use for 0.62 CI (ASA parameters).

Juan, I will develop longer than that for even higher contrast when I am aware that a roll includes flat scenes.

But I develop normally to 0.62 CI and include fully sunlit scenes and unknown rolls.

I don't know if what I do is best, a little less would be fine for most purposes. But much less does cause loss of speed.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Could it be that when TX changed to smaller grain a decade ago, part of the package was it became a slower film, at least in D-76...? I think I read about that once... As I said, I was surprised first some days ago while testing soft light, but as Lachlan and Bill said, more development made the trick then, when the game was expansion... But more development doesn´t give me more shadow detail in direct sunlight cases... Although I have not compared the same sunny scene with both films, I'd say -for sun- HP5+ gives decent shadows at 400, and rich shadows at 200, while TX gives little shadows at 200 and rich shadows at 100... Maybe that reflects why TX is great for soft light all the time, while HP5+ -being a wonderful film too- is sometimes too soft for soft light, so it's often uprated to 500-640-800 in soft light... Anyway both films can handle both cases...

 

[Lachlan Young]

Could it be that when TX changed to smaller grain a decade ago, part of the package was it became a slower film, at least in D-76...? I think I read about that once... As I said, I was surprised first some days ago while testing soft light, but as Lachlan and Bill said, more development made the trick then, when the game was expansion... But more development doesn´t give me more shadow detail in direct sunlight cases... Although I have not compared the same sunny scene with both films, I'd say -for sun- HP5+ gives decent shadows at 400, and rich shadows at 200, while TX gives little shadows at 200 and rich shadows at 100... Maybe that reflects why TX is great for soft light all the time, while HP5+ -being a wonderful film too- is sometimes too soft for soft light, so it's often uprated to 500-640-800 in soft light... Anyway both films can handle both cases...

Juan, what's happening is that incident metering and grey card spot metering are fine in flatter light situations, but when you want to get good shadow details in strongly lit situations you will underexpose shadows using your methods unless you potentially go to +3 stops on the meter. Taking a reading of the actual detailed shadow value as I outlined above will work at full box speed and deliver closer to the design spec for BW neg film. What you may be getting with Xtol or HP5+/ Microphen is that in some circumstances the toe may be softer than in D-76, thus your underexposure latitude goes up a bit. One of the design aims of Xtol looks like it was intended to counteract the tendency to underexpose (so it raises shadow speed, slightly softer toe) and overprocess (tamped down highlight density/ shouldering to a lower Dmax).

EDIT: Having gone & checked up on this, I don't think there's any significant difference in toe shape between 400TX and HP5+ - what is the case however is that there is much less difference in shadow speed between D-76 and Xtol (both 1+1) on HP5+ (almost vanishingly so within normal usage), but much more in line with the normal/ expected differences between D-76 and Xtol with 400TX. In other words, your perception is being distorted by HP5's performance being atypically more equal in shadow speed between D-76 and Xtol/ Microphen etc.

 

[grain elevator]

Hi grain, in that case I wouldn't be metering at 400, but placing whatever I want in zone III to get that amount of detail: that's a different story, but that's not an ISO400 exposure.

I Don't think your understanding of the nomenclature is how it's generally used. I'd still call it an ISO 400 exposure if your zone placement is based on EI 400.
How can you know there is a film speed problem if you meter in a way that doesn't consider the speed point at all? You seem to be assuming or estimating a certain deepness of the shadows. But in my experience shadows vary a lot. Most likely explanation is, as Lachlan essentially said, that the shadows are simply darker than you assume.

 

[Alan9940]

Hello Alan,
Any wet print scan to see those rich shadows not to complain about?

It probably won't come across in the attached, but on my screen I can see detail in the deepest shadow area in the lower left corner.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Tri-X400, Pyrocat HD 1:1:100, 14 minutes @ 75F.

Tri-X400, Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 14mins @75F

 

[138S]

Is it possible that current Tri-X was in some way optimized for Xtol and then it became a bit slower in D-76?

TX is also perfect for sunlight delivering a particular footprint, in general TX delivers a bit more grain in the shadows while HP5+ delivers a bit more grain in the mids.

In general Xtol provides around 1/3 stop speed advantage compared to D-76, with most films.

This is about taste, but probably Xtol is a good idea for TX in 35mm to not have a too much coarse grain, for MF you need less a fine grain... Xtol delivers a bit less grain than D-76.

I would not say that TX is "optimized" for a particular developer... different developers (and dilutions) work slightly different and you have to find the combination you would like to try.

Here you have some 847 recipes/smaples for TX development, you can get quite well informed there:

https://filmdev.org/film/show/1023

 

[Sirius Glass]

TX is also perfect for sunlight delivering a particular footprint, in general TX delivers a bit more grain in the shadows while HP5+ delivers a bit more grain in the mids.

In general Xtol provides around 1/3 stop speed advantage compared to D-76, with most films.

This is about taste, but probably Xtol is a good idea for TX in 35mm to not have a too much coarse grain, for MF you need less a fine grain... Xtol delivers a bit less grain than D-76.

I would not say that TX is "optimized" for a particular developer... different developers (and dilutions) work slightly different and you have to find the combination you would like to try.

Here you have some 847 recipes/smaples for TX development, you can get quite well informed there:

https://filmdev.org/film/show/1023


View attachment 265375

WTF??? Someone other than me put up this chart!

I shoot Tri-X 400 at ISO 400 with or without filters. I also shoot it at ISO 400 using a spot meter to use the modified Zone System and then adjust for filters if necessary. All developed in replenished XTOL. I get good shadows and I do not get struck by lightning either.

 

[Lachlan Young]

And while this canard is being brought up again, if someone thinks they're seeing more visible granularity further down the scale in Tri-X than HP5+, it's because they've given the TX relatively less exposure (for whatever reason) than the HP5+ - or the HP5+ relatively more exposure. Nothing inherent to the films, but rather to then end user not correcting for slight effective speed differences in use.

 

[BradS]

WTF??? Someone other than me put up this chart!.

Anarchy!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

 

[Truzi]

Tri-X400, Pyrocat HD 1:1:100, 14 minutes @ 75F.

Damn, you gave that statue skin tone.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Juan, what's happening is that incident metering and grey card spot metering are fine in flatter light situations, but when you want to get good shadow details in strongly lit situations you will underexpose shadows using your methods unless you potentially go to +3 stops on the meter. Taking a reading of the actual detailed shadow value as I outlined above will work at full box speed and deliver closer to the design spec for BW neg film. What you may be getting with Xtol or HP5+/ Microphen is that in some circumstances the toe may be softer than in D-76, thus your underexposure latitude goes up a bit. One of the design aims of Xtol looks like it was intended to counteract the tendency to underexpose (so it raises shadow speed, slightly softer toe) and overprocess (tamped down highlight density/ shouldering to a lower Dmax).

EDIT: Having gone & checked up on this, I don't think there's any significant difference in toe shape between 400TX and HP5+ - what is the case however is that there is much less difference in shadow speed between D-76 and Xtol (both 1+1) on HP5+ (almost vanishingly so within normal usage), but much more in line with the normal/ expected differences between D-76 and Xtol with 400TX. In other words, your perception is being distorted by HP5's performance being atypically more equal in shadow speed between D-76 and Xtol/ Microphen etc.

Hi Lachlan, first, thanks a lot for that detailed explanation... It's really interesting...
I started using incident metering for slide film in the 90's: as you know, for slides we meter direct sunlight... That was my bad turn... That metering system comes from that type of film, with prudence in its metering because of slides' easily blown highlights... I've noticed many years ago, just as you said, in the case of black and white film, incident metering under direct sunlight just doesn't work at box speed... So I've been trying to set my own system for direct sun, but I've never been happy with it, and as you see and said, unless I work with my meter at +3, shadow detail is lost, so I'm feeling I'm going to change to what you say...
And of course "metering shadows to make them zone III" is common, but I'm just truly surprised: I had never considered that metering -during direct sunlight days- could be better if thought as a system that should be based more in the shadows than in sunlight... And all you said makes sense... If I meter sunlight only, there's also as grain elevator said the problem of shadows variations, as they can be 3, 4 or 5 stops away from direct sunlight, depending on clouds and surroundings...
So, how's that done? Do you average meter -at box speed- middle reflectance zones in shadows, and place them in III, and also meter how far those shadows are from direct sunlight to decide development time? Or do you just meter the shadows at box speed (as metering overcast), without placing them in III?
I'm feeling I missed that class long ago! I'm sure with direct sunlight I've been doing things the wrong way...
Thanks again, Lachlan.

 

[BradS]

Are you over thinking it?
I mean, in school we used nothing but Tri-X at box speed and developed D76(1+1). We followed the manufacturer’s directions closely. It’s what we were directed to do by the teacher...ostensibly because the combination worked well and was very forgiving. We didn’t have hand held light meters. We just used the built in meter or even followed the little exposure guide that came with the film. I don’t think I used anything else for fifteen or twenty years and would still be if I hadn’t switched to Ilford when Kodak went belly up a few years back.