Opinions on this Tri-X 400 grain?

[Mike Evangelist]

I'm getting back into B&W after a very long absence and would appreciate any expert (or amateur) opinions on the grain look/structure of this Tri-X I just processed. It looks pretty good to me, but I'd like a second opinion.

Shot at 400 ISO, processed in D76 1:1, at 70°, using the Kodak recommended times. Inversion agitation.

(Click for a 100% crop from a 4000 dpi scan; no sharpening/post-processing.)

 

[Mike Evangelist]

Here's the entire frame, for reference...

 

[Roger Cole]

Looks great to me. Looks like Tri-X in D76 1+1. It's clearly today's Tri-X, not that of the 80s I used so much of (which would have shown quite a bit more grain.)

 

[Hatchetman]

well, what format are we looking at?

 

[Mike Evangelist]

645 format from a Rollei 6008i2.

 

[snapguy]

When I first took a look, I thought I saw a lot of grain on the part that shows the TEAC. But I looked again and I think it is just the texture of the machine. The fact that it is out of focus (on purpose, I am sure) does not help me to judge it. Viewing the entire frame, I think it looks fine. Love Tri-X. A lot better than the old Super XX, let me tell you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You may want to try developing with replenished XTOL for finer grain, better tonality, and increased sharpness.

 

[Mike Evangelist]

You may want to try developing with replenished XTOL...

Sounds interesting. I'll have to try it!

 

[Richard Man]

I'm getting back into B&W after a very long absence and would appreciate any expert (or amateur) opinions on the grain look/structure of this Tri-X I just processed. It looks pretty good to me, but I'd like a second opinion.

...

The only true test is to print it out and look at the print. Pixel peeping of large format files are not the same as pixel peeping digital files.

 

[Athiril]

The grain is not normally that soft on Tri-X, are you scanning on a flatbed?

 

[AlanC]

You may want to try developing with replenished XTOL for finer grain, better tonality, and increased sharpness.

I am intrigued. What do you mean when you say "better tonality"?

Alan

 

[gone]

It looks fine. Tri-X and D76 is a great combination. You can find sharper developers, but none that give better tonality w/ Tri-X. If you're just getting back to shooting B&W film, you'd do well to stick to one developer and one film for a little while, but it's fun to experiment too. Scanners exaggerate grain, so what you show here would probably wet print perfectly. I like Tri-X shot at 200 to 250, so you may want to give that a try. Just use the usual times and temps, it's not needed to adjust them.

 

[Roger Cole]

One shot developers are usually better for people who don't shoot and develop a lot of film. There's absolutely nothing wrong with D76 1+1 (nor Xtol 1+1.) I woudln't dispute that a properly replenished full strength developer is a fine alternative but it's easier to keep consistent if you develop a fair amount of film. For the occasional user dilute one shot is the approach I'd recommend (and the one I use, except for my occasional use of Diafine.)

 

[Mike Evangelist]

Is the 6010 a ferrite head machine?

No, standard heads. They are in pretty good shape and the deck sounds fine, but it really doesn't get much use. It's mostly there for sentimental reasons.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The film looks underexposed to me, by at least a stop. That is based on the extra grainy dark values. You should do a film speed test.

For 645 this is very grainy indeed, but in my opinion that is more due to how it was exposed and processed, rather than the film and developer combination. At that size enlargement you shouldn't even be seeing any grain with TX400 and D76.

 

[Athiril]

IMHO its not grainy enough for a 4000 DPI crop. It just says to me the resolving power of the scanner is less than half that which is why I assumed flat bed.

Regardless a 4000 DPI crop displayed at ~72 DPI on a screen is a ~56x enlargement if it were to be printed at the same size.

I'll see if I can find an example of mine I get sharper grain than this with Tri-X.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am intrigued. What do you mean when you say "better tonality"?

Alan

Much smoother continuous range of tones, not in steps and jumps like some other film developers.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Ah, that is so beautiful. And all the better as grain is one of the four major film groups.

Looks great to me.

 

[AlanC]

Much smoother continuous range of tones, not in steps and jumps like some other film developers.

When I tested XTOL against D 76 1+2 I found that XTOL had finer grain, sharpness was the same, but D76 had better tonality. Specifically, XTOL suppressed the highlights and upper mid-tones and D76 let them sing out. I also found that the D76 negatives were easier to print than negatives of the same subject developed in XTOL.

Alan

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

When I tested XTOL against D 76 1+2 I found that XTOL had finer grain, sharpness was the same, but D76 had better tonality. Specifically, XTOL suppressed the highlights and upper mid-tones and D76 let them sing out. I also found that the D76 negatives were easier to print than negatives of the same subject developed in XTOL.

Alan

As a long time user of replenished Xtol, I can only say that the replenished soup is different from using stock solution or diluted solution.

You are correct, though, that Xtol does keep highlights in check really well, and emphasizes mid-tones. It is a brilliant brilliant developer for subject matter where the light source directly illuminates the subject you're photographing. But in low contrast situations I agree something like D76 works a bit better tonally.

It's funny, I used Xtol for so long I find the Xtol negs easier to print than the D76 ones. Probably because it's what I'm used to.

 

[Mike Evangelist]

Thanks everyone for the great input!

I think I'll stick with D76 for now, and try shooting at lower ISO to see what that gets me.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks everyone for the great input!

I think I'll stick with D76 for now, and try shooting at lower ISO to see what that gets me.

Keep in mind that when you are illuminating your scene with artificial light, your film responds differently and usually results in lower sensitivity. The Tri-X data sheet should say what film speed to shoot at in artificial light, I think 160 or 200.

Good luck! There is absolutely nothing wrong with D76. It has worked very well for many photographers for a very long time, beginners and famous artists alike.

 

[AlanC]

As a long time user of replenished Xtol, I can only say that the replenished soup is different from using stock solution or diluted solution.

You are correct, though, that Xtol does keep highlights in check really well, and emphasizes mid-tones. It is a brilliant brilliant developer for subject matter where the light source directly illuminates the subject you're photographing. But in low contrast situations I agree something like D76 works a bit better tonally.

It's funny, I used Xtol for so long I find the Xtol negs easier to print than the D76 ones. Probably because it's what I'm used to.

Thomas, I am sure you are right about getting the best out of what you are used to. For some years I have been using D76 at 1+2. It gives me everything I want, and don't feel the need to use anything. But I am sure I could have got on with XTOL if I'd kept at it.

Alan

 

[Sirius Glass]

As a long time user of replenished Xtol, I can only say that the replenished soup is different from using stock solution or diluted solution.

You are correct, though, that Xtol does keep highlights in check really well, and emphasizes mid-tones. It is a brilliant brilliant developer for subject matter where the light source directly illuminates the subject you're photographing. But in low contrast situations I agree something like D76 works a bit better tonally.

It's funny, I used Xtol for so long I find the Xtol negs easier to print than the D76 ones. Probably because it's what I'm used to.

Yes, what he said.