Kodak triX 400 Film.

[tripleteer]

Just getting a consensus of opinion for developing chemicals that folks use for triX 400 film.
Thanks in advance for your opinions. Paul.

 

[Pat Erson]

"consensus" + "developing" [a ubiquitous film like] "triX 400" = good luck getting usable answers!

My humble proposition: D-76 1+1.

 

[jimjm]

You can develop Tri-X in just about any developer and get good results.
My personal favorites are D-76 1:1 and HC-110 dilution B or H.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

D76 1:1 is classic. Acufine used to work nicely decades back and all the news guys used it. Kodak has since reformulated it. Diafine will get you 1200 ISO, I stick with classic. You can make D76 for $1 per liter.

Use straight for less grain, use 1:3 for more , but it gets extremely sharp. No developer gets speed, sharpness, and fine grain. Pick two . I repeat D76 1:1.

 

[tripleteer]

"consensus" + "developing" [a ubiquitous film like] "triX 400" = good luck getting usable answers!

??????????

 

[darkosaric]

Only Rodinal. All other developers are not good for TriX.

I hope we get consensus about this true statement .

 

[Lachlan Young]

Pretty much anything is excellent with Tri-X. D-76/ID-11 1+1 is a superb combination. XTOL is great too. Perceptol, DD-X, even Rodinal have produced wonderful, even iconic results with Tri-X. My own preference is somewhere in the 8.5m range, ID-11, 1+1, ei 200, yellow filter.

 

[R.Gould]

I always used Rodinal, gave lovely negatives
Richard

 

[FerruB]

I used to develop TriX in D76 1+1 and I was always happy with the results: EI 320, 9.5 minutes, with the first minute of agitation and then one inversion every 30 seconds if I remember correctly (should check my note). Prints very well in my case.

Now I am starting using Pyrocat HD (homemade and cheaper). Still experimenting to get optimal results with TriX, but so far happy. Here some preliminary results with this combination: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Cheers
Ferru

 

[tripleteer]

The massive development chart says that when using D76 with triX400 at 1+1, temp should be 27c !! Why the hike in temperature?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

My favorite developer for Tri-X 400 is D-76 1+1. I've made beautiful photos with Tri-X developed in Tmax Developer, Xtol, and Rodinal as well.

D-76 1+1 gives, in my opinion, the nicest tonality, and Xtol is great too.

Tmax Developer is ok if you want to avoid powdered chemicals. I think it gives somewhat flatter midtones than D-76 or Xtol.

Rodinal gives a gritty look with sharper grain and harsher gradation. I like it a lot for some types of subjects.

 

[eatfrog]

The massive development chart says that when using D76 with triX400 at 1+1, temp should be 27c !! Why the hike in temperature?

It's just an option if you want to develop it at 27c. If you look one row above it you will see the time for 20c.

 

[pdeeh]

??????????

You will get just about as many different opinions as there are developers.
Unless you think "consensus" means something different than it's normal usage?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

The massive development chart says that when using D76 with triX400 at 1+1, temp should be 27c !! Why the hike in temperature?

I would disregard that if I were you. The Massive Development Chart is a collection of stuff people have sent in with no verification if the times are any good. With Tri-X, you really should start with Kodak's recommended times. They're usually very close, if not spot-on perfect. I think my own tested time is slightly shorter than Kodak's in D-76 1+1, but the Kodak time is a great starting point.

 

[tripleteer]

So the consensus of opinion so far is D76..

 

[bernard_L]

Generally agree with D-76 1+1. But keep in mind the info of the Kodak Datasheet (attached). Sure, one can argue that you will calibrate your own times. But, a 135-36 film and a 120 film have (roughly) the same area, yet one will require (according to Kodak) an extension of 10%, and the other not, with the usual developer volumes.

 

[MattKing]

No, no, never D-76!
(just kidding - sort of)
There are probably more people using D-76 (or Ilford's ID-11 - essentially the same) because more people use D-76 than any other developer.
I would hazard a guess that all developers are tested with Tri-X 400.
I rarely use Tri-X, but if I do, I don't use D-76. I use my standard developer - HC-110 dil E (replenished).
Tri-X works dependably in an extremely wide range of developers, which means that there are an extremely wide range of developers that people use with Tri-X.
But if I was developing film in someone else's darkroom, I'd be happy to use D-76.
I think the problem is your using "consensus". There is none.
If you had asked a different question - "is D-76 good for Tri-X?" - you would probably get consensus on "yes".

 

[MattKing]

Generally agree with D-76 1+1. But keep in mind the info of the Kodak Datasheet (attached). Sure, one can argue that you will calibrate your own times. But, a 135-36 film and a 120 film have (roughly) the same area, yet one will require (according to Kodak) an extension of 10%, and the other not, with the usual developer volumes.
View attachment 180762

The reason for the wording in the data-sheet is that it is impossible to fit two 120 reels in a 16 ounce tank, whereas it is possible to fit two 35mm reels in a 16 ounce tank. If you put two 120 rolls on to a single reel (which I do fairly frequently) use the same time extension with 120 as with 35mm.

 

[darkosaric]

So the consensus of opinion so far is D76..

Those are the people who do not use Leica. If you use Leica you must develop it in Rodinal, because Salgado did this. D76 and Xtol were pushed as a standard and "good" developers from evil corporations, because they want to make money, and with Rodinal developing cost nothing.*





* of course I am trolling

 

[Dali]

Those are the people who do not use Leica. If you use Leica you must develop it in Rodinal, because Salgado did this. D76 and Xtol were pushed as a standard and "good" developers from evil corporations, because they want to make money, and with Rodinal developing cost nothing.*





* of course I am trolling

This is not the first time I read such statement about Rodinal and D76 (no kidding!) from Leica users...

 

[John Bragg]

Don't pay too much attention to the odd curved ball from the Massive Dev Chart. Bear in mind that it is a collection of anecdotal data submitted by many people. The best starting point is from manufacturers own scientifically derived data.

 

[RichardJack]

I also agree with D76. I've tried just about every developer since 1966 on Tri-X and come back to D76. For maximum speed and contrast (@ISO400) I use it stock, for slightly finer grain but lower contrast I use it 1:1. I never replenish, only one time only and mix it with distilled water. Keeping the temperatures of your other chemicals exactly the same as the developer is very important as well.
Follow Kodak's recommendation for development time and agitation as well.

 

[Pat Erson]

I just processed a batch of TRI-X 135 : D-76 1+1 at 20°C for 11 minutes.
That's a classic recipe that's really hard to beat Tripleteer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use replenished XTOL in a Jobo processor for rotary processing.

 

[Wallendo]

I usually use HC-110 dilution B for 5 minutes.

I have developed in the past with D76 1+1 with good results (I ignore Kodak's warning and just mix 125ml D76 stock with 125ml water for a single 35mm roll).