Kodak 320 TXP and PhotoFormulary (rodinal)

[Andrew Laverghetta]

I've started using medium format for my black and white class recently and it's been awesome. I've used 400 Tri-X mostly, buying single rolls for class, but I just purchased a 5pack of 320TXP so I believe that's tri-x pan, right? I assume that kodak's other film in 35mm isn't panchromatic? Is that what it's saying? I thought I remembered seeing that pan film had increased sensitivity to blue light but I don't remember what else. So...what else? hahaha

Also, got a small 125mL bottle of rodinal before I really knew that I would like it's results or knew much about it. So, I'm very close to running out and I got some of Photographer's Formulary Paraminphenol (Rodinal) to check it out, but since they say they're not sure on how well it matches, I'm not sure what to do in terms of development. Since this isn't a big brandname, original developer like Agfa's Rodinal and more of a third party copy (as I see it) I don't know whether to follow the dev chart's times or what. I'd really not like to waste a roll on a test, especially because I'd like to use it for my final project. Is there anyway to cut off a strip of film and test it in a small dish of developer until it looks a certain way or does anybody have experience with 320 TXP in formulary rodinal? I also got some TD-16 I believe which is supposed to be better D-76?

Thanks!

I love this place, it's like heaven haha!

 

[jim appleyard]

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but here goes. TXP is Tri-X, but the professional version. It's similar, but different. It's meant for studio work under controlled lighting conditions. It also has a base for retouching. You may find times on the Massive Dev. Chart at digitaltruth.com. Others may suggest times, too.

Formulary's "Rodinal" is probably close to Agfa's Rodinal, but may also be a bit different.

I can't say about TD-16.

I'm afraid you'll have to do test rolls, perhaps several, to nail it down.

 

[Andrew Laverghetta]

Yeah, for some reason, there's very little about TXP on the massive dev chart, at least for rodinal I guess. Ok, so basilly I guess I'll ask anybody to contribute their times for ANY developers along with Kodak TXP 120 and I could try to to make an estimate...hmm, except for the whole dillution differences. But yeah, if you can contriubute any roll film dev times for kodak txp that would be great and if you can contribute any times for any other film for furmulary's "rodinal" that would be excellent as well so I could compare and average with other developers and films...

Thanks!!

 

[reellis67]

Here is the link to Kodak's tech pub on this film. It has some times for various Kodak developers.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof....jhtml?id=0.1.22.14.25.18.16.14&lc=en#manproc

I've used their times with good results, but I make adjustments in the exposure and development so your mileage may vary. At least they should give you usable results. I would not suggest Rodinal - or an equivalent recipe - with Tri-X unless you want lots of grain. I like grain, but some people don't and I have seen very grainy results using Tri-X with (AGFA)Rodinal in the past - both 400 and 320. Depending on what you want, this combination may or may not work well for you.

You can use a changing bag to clip off small strips of film to do experiments with, but it is hard to cut without cutting into a frame unless you measure carefully how much your camera advances the film to the first frame. If you have a scrap roll you can load it, advance to the third frame, mark the film where the frame ends (closest to the cartridge), unload it, then cut a strip of cardboard to that length. This will give you a ruler that is 3 frames long - including the leader - that you can then use in the changing bag to clip your exposed roll. Now use your ruler to cut a clip of your exposed film inside the changing bag, load it on a plastic reel (easier to use processing film clips that stainless steel reels) and develop it to see the results.

- Randy

 

[gainer]

Both versions of Tri-X are panchromatic. TXP 320 has a long toe. The theory is sometimes stated that studio film needs a long toe to make up for the flare that is usually present in outdoor use. The shape of the curve in any case is supposed to be well suited for formal portraits by having more contrast in highlights than in shadows.

The "P" on the end used to stand for "Professional" by the way.

 

[stormbytes]

Check out this thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Andrew Laverghetta]

Hmm, seems as though this could be interesting. I'll be doing what I can with this film to use for my final photo project for this semester. I've already shot a roll of Tri-X400 and it's great. I developed 1:100 with true Rodinal and a test print at 8x8 looks great in terms of grain and sharpness.

The reason why it could be interesting is because of how people mention it's not as good with shadow detail I think? While I was reading about the rodinal/formulary paraminophenol I saw again that it says it helps increase shadow detail...now I'm not taking this as meaning it will solve all my problems but do you think that using the normal tri-x, being shot at night using street lamps as the light sorce, will give a better look than the 320TXP that I just got? Do you think that it will still give pleasing results? I don't believe there can be THAT much different with the two films when they're shot at their rated ISO as long as I can get the exposures correct? If I overexpose a tad, do you think that will bring up the shadow detail a little more while letting the film's reportedly better highlight control take care of the highlights? Once again, I'll be shooting night city photography for things like buildings and stuff that's in a moderately sized city at night.

Thanks for all your help!

 

[Andrew Laverghetta]

I also mentioned Formulary's TD-16 (improved D-76) in another of my posts here. I read on their website that times should be exactly the same for Kodak's D-76.

 

[Gerald Koch]

Why Kodak chose to name two completely different films Tri-X is a question only the folks in Rochester can answer. The speed and characteristic curves are different. Best to think of them as different films.