Possible Stupid Question Alert

From the Garden

D
From the Garden

  • 1
  • 0
  • 453
Kildare

A
Kildare

  • 7
  • 2
  • 838
Sonatas XII-26 (Homes)

A
Sonatas XII-26 (Homes)

  • 3
  • 2
  • 918
Johnny Mills Shoal

H
Johnny Mills Shoal

  • 2
  • 1
  • 810
The Two Wisemen.jpg

H
The Two Wisemen.jpg

  • 0
  • 0
  • 736

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,307
Messages
2,789,393
Members
99,863
Latest member
Amaraldo
Recent bookmarks
1

Flotsam

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
3,221
Location
S.E. New Yor
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:
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
159
Location
Guatemala
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
1,912
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
OP
OP
Flotsam

Flotsam

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
3,221
Location
S.E. New Yor
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

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
731
Location
Minnesota Tr
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
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

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2003
Messages
1,250
Location
Powell Wyoming
Format
Large Format
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+.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
468
Location
Canada
Format
4x5 Format
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)
 
OP
OP
Flotsam

Flotsam

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
3,221
Location
S.E. New Yor
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

Member
Joined
May 27, 2003
Messages
112
Location
Chicago, IL
Format
Large Format Pan
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

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
3,281
Format
Multi Format
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
 
OP
OP
Flotsam

Flotsam

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
3,221
Location
S.E. New Yor
Anybody happen to have the Kodak time for TXP320 rollfilm in Xtol 1:1, 20C inversion?
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom