Is Super 8 Tri-X be treated like 35mm Tri-X if processed as negative?

[mr.datsun]

I asked this once before but I remember the answer felt a little unclear. I think someone said no and someone used the '~' symbol to say approximately the same. But today I'm processing as negative, so I thought the question worth trying again...

Should Super8 Tri-X be treated just like 35mm Tri-X if processed as negative?

i.e should it be rated at 320 or 400ASA, and then use the Tri-X standard process times?

Is the Super 8 only rated at 200ASA because it is being reverse processed?

 

[darkosaric]

Hard that you will get an answer - maybe to do this test: take half meter of Super 8 in changing bag and load it in some camera where you can test it for different shutter speeds / ISO. What comes in mind if something like Afga isolette, there you can use any smaller film, just tape it on 120 spool and cover the red window.

 

[MartinP]

Aren't most Super-8 cameras automated based on some sort of EI indicator moulded into the cassette? Effectively the speed is set by the cassette on most cameras, not by the user. That said, a stop of over exposure would be more of a help than a hindrance (unless the tiny neg means it is very 'grain-sensitive' though?). Darkosaric's testing idea could be a very good one, for checking the different exposure and development possibilities.

 

[ic-racer]

When [Tri-x Super 8 is] processed as a reversal film, the resulting positive
can be used for projection or for duplication. If processed
as a negative material by conventional methods, the film
will yield satisfactory results, although there will be some
loss in speed and an increase in granularity--Kodak

That is not clear?

 

[mr.datsun]

Hard that you will get an answer - maybe to do this test: take half meter of Super 8 in changing bag and load it in some camera where you can test it for different shutter speeds / ISO. What comes in mind if something like Afga isolette, there you can use any smaller film, just tape it on 120 spool and cover the red window.

thanks for the idea. I'm actually using a refillable cassette, so I'm sorted on how to run tests.

 

[mr.datsun]

Aren't most Super-8 cameras automated based on some sort of EI indicator moulded into the cassette? Effectively the speed is set by the cassette on most cameras, not by the user. That said, a stop of over exposure would be more of a help than a hindrance (unless the tiny neg means it is very 'grain-sensitive' though?). Darkosaric's testing idea could be a very good one, for checking the different exposure and development possibilities.

I'm setting manual exposure using a Weston V.

 

[mr.datsun]

That is not clear?

It would have been plenty clear if I'd seen that before

So, it sounds like the standard development times for Tri-X 35mm still film do not apply either, and so I need to find the optimum time by testing.

Thank-you

 

[MDR]

The negative will be grainier more contrasty (loss of midtones). According to some sources (cinematography.com, etc...) you will loose 2/3 to one full stop of film Speed new E.I. around 80 to 120. Good luck

 

[mr.datsun]

The negative will be grainier more contrasty (loss of midtones). According to some sources (cinematography.com, etc...) you will loose 2/3 to one full stop of film Speed new E.I. around 80 to 120. Good luck

Practical advice. Thank-you!

I've seen the grain when I developed R09. I will try a new approach to development to reduce it. I'll try stand development and/or HC110, as I have it on the shelf.

I've also seen the compressed midtones. Not sure what i can do about that but I can always learn to enjoy it (and the grain).

 

[MartinP]

Kodak recommend D96 as the developer, but for practical purposes it would be easier to find D76 (or the Ilford-Photo ID11 which is the same thing, just packaged differently). Using the developer at 1:1 dilution will help sharpness a little bit, though be sure to check the data sheets for the extended time required. These alternatives will all give a more pictorial result than R09. Congratulations on finding a camera that isn't solely 'automatic'!

 

[mr.datsun]

Kodak recommend D96 as the developer, but for practical purposes it would be easier to find D76 (or the Ilford-Photo ID11 which is the same thing, just packaged differently). Using the developer at 1:1 dilution will help sharpness a little bit, though be sure to check the data sheets for the extended time required. These alternatives will all give a more pictorial result than R09. Congratulations on finding a camera that isn't solely 'automatic'!

Martin,

Thanks for your ideas.

Firstly, I'd been thinking about D19.

I read that D19 is the same as D94 which is for the Tr-X reversal process. I also hear that D19 is high contrast. My negs are very flat and need boosting in photoshop at the moment.

I need good contrast and I think I need something economic, with a reasonable shelf-life and that I can use a few times. Because I'm going to be using 1L per film.

However, it looks like D19 is finished and the Photographer's Formulary substitute is £11 per L in the UK.

So ID-11 or D76? Would these give the contrast and speed benefits of D19? £4.99 per L or £9.99 for 5L. ID-11 is a very good price.