Possible Stupid Question Alert

Flotsam · May 30, 2005

I was looking at the Massive Developing chart to find a time for developing 120 TriX 320 in Xtol. They give two complete sets of quite different times, One for Tri-X 320 [TXP] and one for Tri-X 320 [TXP/TXT]. Maybe I'm being a bit thick on this holiday weekend but what is the difference? :confused:

Peter Rockstroh · May 30, 2005

It has been some time since I´ve used Tri-X, but I remember two versions, the normal Tri-X and the Professional. They had a different exposure index and different development times.

Paul Sorensen · May 30, 2005

TX is the 400 speed which is available in 35mm and 120. TXP is the 320 version in 120/220 and TXT is the sheet film version of the 320 speed version. TXP/TXP are supposed to have the same times, and TX is different. As to why there are two listings in the massive dev chart for TXP, I have no idea.

jjstafford · May 30, 2005

they are two different films in many ways. it is an oddity that they have similar names.

Flotsam · May 30, 2005

Paul Sorensen said:
TXP is the 320 version in 120/220 and TXT is the sheet film version of the 320 speed version.

And yet they give 120 and sheet film times for both [TXP] and [TXP/TXT]

jjstafford · May 30, 2005

Flotsam said:
And yet they give 120 and sheet film times for both [TXP] and [TXP/TXT]

the massive chart is not good; there are many uninformed, nonreviewed recomendations and crude extrapolations based on 'similar' films which are not similar.

removed account4 · May 30, 2005

jjstafford said:
the massive chart is not good; there are many uninformed, nonreviewed recomendations and crude extrapolations based on 'similar' films which are not similar.

true ...
but aren't these published times &C just a bunch of starting points
... i always take these things with a very large grain of salt

fhovie · May 31, 2005

I am under the impression that TXP 320 "Professional" is tailored for studio use and is a lower contrast film. This would bear out with my experience in the field. If I use TXP on a scene that has 5 stops or less contrast - The neg will be so flat I will hardly be able to work with it. (I have not experimented with contrast expansion per se) I know that TXP in 120 at ASA 1600 is a wonderful film. The contrast is just right for the flat low light interior situations I am faced with from time to time. The grain when pushed in XTOL is wonderful. HP5 can also be used the same way but it doesn't have some of the apearant sharpness of the TXP. For contrast expansion - I stick to FP4+.

Joe Symchyshyn · May 31, 2005

Flotsam said:
...One for Tri-X 320 [TXP] and one for Tri-X 320 [TXP/TXT]...

As far as I knew... TXT was only code used for sheet film only. This was the OLD name. It's now been changed to TXP as well... (Sheet film is 320)

Correct me if I'm wrong but...

TX (35mm 400)

TX (120 400) version 1
TXP (120 320) version 2

TXT/TXP (4x5, 8x10 320)

Flotsam · May 31, 2005

This is from the chart

.......Film...............Developer....Dilution..ASA/ISO...120...Sheet....Temp

Tri-X 320 [320TXP]....Xtol..........stock.....320........7.75.....6.........20C

and further down in the list:
Tri-X 320 [TXP/TXT]..Xtol.........stock.....320.........6.25.....6.5......20C

There are similar descrepancies between [TXP] and [TXP/TXT] at other dilutions and EIs

AndrewH · May 31, 2005

I think I know this one.

The difference is that the one is the older emulsion and the one is the newer emulsion (akin to TX 400 older versus 400TX newer). Your 320TXP is the newer emulsion and the TXP 320 is the older. Kodak moved their naming conventions to ASA/Name after moving theiir production a few years back. I believe anything with Name - Number is older and anything NumberName is newer.

Lee L · May 31, 2005

I recall seeing similar variations on other films at the Massive Development Chart. I believe they post a variety of times/temps from a number of contributors, who, I assume, have a huge variation in techniques, temps, agitation, enlargers, lenses, cameras, light sources, meters, metering techniques, etc. I take their info, and most other info that doesn't fit my personal conditions and techniques, as a starting point, and not much more. I figure I'm lucky if I get to within +/- 25% of the correct development time with reference material of this nature, but that's almost always much better than starting from nothing.

Lee

Flotsam · May 31, 2005

Anybody happen to have the Kodak time for TXP320 rollfilm in Xtol 1:1, 20C inversion?

mikeb_z5 · May 31, 2005

11 1/4 min @ 20C in a small tank.

Here's the data sheet for XTOL:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...#small-tank, tray, and rotary-tube processing

Flotsam · May 31, 2005

Thanks, Mike

Possible Stupid Question Alert

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency