Kodak TXP Sheet film developing

Andrew Moxom · May 5, 2010

I am going to try some Kodak TXP in both 4x5 and 8x10. For now, my choice on development will be using continuous agitation in Unicolor drums. After searching MANY websites for data. There really is nothing conclusive for continuous agitation of these sheet films that I can find as a starting point. I was wanting to use HC110 @ Dilution H (to allow more time for even development). Does anyone have a starting point I could try?

Thanks

Andy

2F/2F · May 5, 2010

Read page 6 of the Tri-X data sheet for starting points.

I also seem to remember the back of the box of TXP sheet film saying something like, "Reduce times by 15% when using continuous agitation."

PVia · May 5, 2010

Andrew...

I've used Dilution H with TXP sheet film at 74 degrees for 5 minutes, continual interleaving agitation. 2 min presoak. Very nice negs this way...

Andrew Moxom · May 5, 2010

2F/2F said:
Read page 6 of the Tri-X data sheet for starting points.

I also seem to remember the back of the box of TXP sheet film saying something like, "Reduce times by 15% when using continuous agitation."

Page #6 has an EI of 1600 and 3200, not 320!! for push processing in rotary tanks... Not what I had in mind.

Guillaume Zuili · May 5, 2010

10 minutes in Rodinal 1+50 (rating 200 asa)
Meat in the neg.

Guillaume Zuili · May 5, 2010

Sorry Andrew didn't pay attention about your HC110 request.

2F/2F · May 5, 2010

Andrew Moxom said:
Page #6 has an EI of 1600 and 3200, not 320!! for push processing in rotary tanks... Not what I had in mind.

Then we are looking at different data sheets. Mine sez March 2004 F-4017 at the top.

Rolleiflexible · May 6, 2010

I shoot TXP sheets @ EI 200 and process
in Jobo tanks on roller bases in a 1:25
Rodinal solution for 8+ minutes @ 68F,
after a presoak of the film. (According
to Jobo, a presoak offsets the effects of
constant agitation for the purposes of
your developing recipes.)

Andrew Moxom · May 6, 2010

Thanks Sanders... I do have some rodinal so might have to give that a go.

Andrew Moxom · May 6, 2010

Greg, here is where the dilution H comes from:- http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

I figured a more dilute developer and longer time would negate any uneven development issues. Just trying to work out a time for TXP that's all.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 6, 2010

This is from page 6 of the following document:
(only pay attention to the left side of that page)

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

Rotary-Tube Processing
Follow the agitation recommendations for your processor.
The design of the machine and the agitation will
significantly affect the development time required to
obtain optimum contrast. The times given below are
starting-point recommendations. Make tests to determine
if results are acceptable for your needs.

Underneath are three charts with starting point developing times for rotary tube processing, one of them Tri-X 320 sheet film.
It says HC-110 Dilution B is 3 minutes @ 68*F, which makes it 6 minutes at Dilution H.
That seems a little short to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if you find that the actual time you need is longer.

- Thomas

Andrew Moxom · May 6, 2010

Thanks Thomas, I did not find this on my searches.... Great starting point.. and dilution H for 6 minutes will be a good starting point.

PVia · May 6, 2010

Dilution H is all I ever used with TXP/HC110...times from 5-6 minutes up to 9 minutes depending on temps and whether sheet or roll film, tank or rotary, etc, although I don't think I ever used the processor with this film.

br549 · May 6, 2010

I recently developed a few sheets of 4x5 TXP in a Jobo expert drum on an old Beseler motor base with HC 110 B at 68 degrees for 3 minutes, I used a presoak since the development time was so short. I shot the images at 160 ASA and the negatives look good. So 3 minutes for the described conditions works well, but 3 minutes is really short and I’m also looking for something in a higher dilution to give more control over processing. Looks like H may be the answer, once I work it out.

Andrew Moxom · May 6, 2010

I hope to try it in a few moments actually dilution H. I exposed at box speed of 320 and will try 7 minutes @ dilution H as my starting point.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 6, 2010

Can't wait to see your results, Andy.

Shangheye · May 6, 2010

Andrew Moxom said:
Thanks Sanders... I do have some rodinal so might have to give that a go.

I use Rodinal 1:50 too...but dip and dunk. Lovely negs. K

Andrew Moxom · May 6, 2010

Okay, an update.... I exposed one sheet of 8x10 TXP rated at IE320. Using HC110 dilution H (1:63) @ 68 deg F for 7 minutes in the uniroller tank and motorized base, I got a wonderful neg. Seeing that first 8x10 neg I ever made come out of the tank with a full range of tones and looking superb for printing, I nearly peed my pants!! Got more tests to do however for extreme subject brightness ranges, but for now, I am a happy camper. Will post a neg scan when it's dried.

Thanks for those that chimed in with suggestions.

2F/2F · May 6, 2010

HC dilution H is probably my favorite developer that I have ever used. It is pretty much all I use for general-purpose pix. When I want faster times, or want to push more than one stop, I use dilution B. I find, and tested, that doubling the dilution B time works almost perfectly.

mike c · May 6, 2010

Andrew,I tray develop Txp 1:63 from 8min to 12 min,got to watch the higher tones as they block up pretty easy compared to tmax 100.
Mike

2F/2F · May 6, 2010

mike c said:
Andrew,I tray develop Txp 1:63 from 8min to 12 min,got to watch the higher tones as they block up pretty easy compared to tmax 100.
Mike

Depends on what you mean by "block up". In contrast, TXP is softer, and by a noticeably good deal, so if by "block up" you mean "blow out", I would disagree. It is very difficult to accidentally overdevelop TXP IME.

All things being equal, the T-Max will give a contrastier negative than the TXP, so the highlights will blow out more easily. However, the T-Max will hold burnable highlight detail higher than will TXP 320, which shoulders off and compresses high tones, eliminating detail past a certain point (which is what I think of when I hear the term "block up").

So, the way I would say it, the T-Max is easier to blow out the highlights with, and it is also easier to recover them from. The TXP is harder to blow out the highlights with, but when you do, the effects on the image will be quite severe and closer to irrecoverable in printing.

mike c · May 6, 2010

That sounds about right,thanks for the correction.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 6, 2010

Fantastic!

There's nothing like 'not' wasting a sheet of 8x10.

- Thomas

Andrew Moxom said:
Okay, an update.... I exposed one sheet of 8x10 TXP rated at IE320. Using HC110 dilution H (1:63) @ 68 deg F for 7 minutes in the uniroller tank and motorized base, I got a wonderful neg. Seeing that first 8x10 neg I ever made come out of the tank with a full range of tones and looking superb for printing, I nearly peed my pants!! Got more tests to do however for extreme subject brightness ranges, but for now, I am a happy camper. Will post a neg scan when it's dried.

Thanks for those that chimed in with suggestions.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 6, 2010

In my usage TMX doesn't block up easily, because it holds a longer tonal scale than what TXP does. But, its scale extends far beyond what's printable if you don't halt development on time, where TXP shoulders off instead.
Anyway, that's my experience with the two films. In the end, we want the negs printable, so the difference isn't really important. Both are fantastic films.

"Block up" is a correct term, by the way. What does 'blow out' mean? That the negative explodes? Spontaneous combustion?

2F/2F said:
Depends on what you mean by "block up". In contrast, TXP is softer, and by a noticeably good deal, so if by "block up" you mean "blow out", I would disagree. It is very difficult to accidentally overdevelop TXP IME.

All things being equal, the T-Max will give a contrastier negative than the TXP, so the highlights will blow out more easily. However, the T-Max will hold burnable highlight detail higher than will TXP 320, which shoulders off and compresses high tones, eliminating detail past a certain point (which is what I think of when I hear the term "block up").

So, the way I would say it, the T-Max is easier to blow out the highlights with, and it is also easier to recover them from. The TXP is harder to blow out the highlights with, but when you do, the effects on the image will be quite severe and closer to irrecoverable in printing.

Erik L · May 6, 2010

Thomas Bertilsson said:
In my usage TMX doesn't block up easily, because it holds a longer tonal scale than what TXP does. But, its scale extends far beyond what's printable if you don't halt development on time, where TXP shoulders off instead.
Anyway, that's my experience with the two films. In the end, we want the negs printable, so the difference isn't really important. Both are fantastic films.

"Block up" is a correct term, by the way. What does 'blow out' mean? That the negative explodes? Spontaneous combustion?

I've always used the term "blocked Up" referring to unprintable shadows and the term" blown out" to refer to unprintable highlights but that's just my vernacular with the voices in my head
erik

Kodak TXP Sheet film developing

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency