Recommendations for current 35mm Tri-X, soft light scenes only...

[Juan Valdenebro]

In 2019 I ordered two 100ft. rolls of Tri-X, sent from Freestyle to a friend's home in L.A., a photographer who was soon to visit Colombia, South America... She was about to fly here when the pandemic started, so her trip -and my film- vanished for a long time... Last week a friend told me about a good friend of his who was visiting the U.S. in February and got stuck there, in Houston, and he finally found a way to fly back here after nine months! He arrived today -with my Tri-X- but he's in another city, so he'll bring me my film next week when he visits his father here in my hometown...

All this just to explain I'll be -no doubt now- doing street very soon and for maybe two years with those two Tri-X rolls and no other type of film: I don't hit the shutter too much... To add another certainty to be taken into account, I'll use that Tri-X for soft light exclusively, never for direct sunlight, so I'll photograph with it only under overcast skies and in zones of shadows in sunny days.. Last sure thing, I'll expose it at 640 precisely, as part of my personal system for exposing without metering, something that started many years ago at 1600 and f/11, then at 1000 and f/8 1/2, and now at 640 and f/8, to be able to give the same name -in my mind- to different levels of light no matter the ISO I'm using, just by having a different fix aperture... So easy!

Please excuse me for the narrow character of this thread: 35mm Tri-X at 640 for overcast...

The fact is while my Tri-X was far away I had an adventure with TMax400 and FX-39 II, and found out they work beautifully for soft light from the point of view of tonality... Outstanding, I'd say... I want to treat Tri-X equally well... Today I'm asking for recommendations (developer and dilution) you know that produce great tone for a moderate expansion with Tri-X under soft light... Other recent testing showed me how attractive the use of a standard solvent developer can be when used undiluted: I found, with three different classic grain films, detail rendering is vastly improved when grain is not totally sharp... This is new to me... No matter if I used them stock or diluted, speed enhancing developers tend to destroy finest detail... It's visible... Standard developers, when undiluted, can show very fine detail... A big difference...

So I don`t know if I'll end up using stock D-76, or stock Xtol for my Tri-X, or any other recommendation from Photrio forum members, but I know already, after several recent wet printing tests, Tri-X will give me more if I don`t go above 640, and also if I go for a solvent development, mostly if I don't use a developer that's focused on speed mainly...

Well, that's it: it's not complicated, but the explanation was necessary...

So, any satisfied users of Tri-X away from direct sunlight? Maybe in a middle point between box speed and mild pushing but without push developers?

Thanks!

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you want to keep everything constant over that kind of time, it's probably worth finding ID-11 and looking up Ilford's instructions on mixing a second bag as replenisher for the first bag. Replenished Xtol is another fine choice (and simpler to do, since the developer is its own replenisher). Either one can be used with a suitable time adjustment to get your EI 640 (should be about 8 minutes at 20C or temperature compensated equivalent, in either stock developer, vs. 7 minutes for box speed and normal contrast). Either one will give the smoothest grain Tri-X can give (and modern Tri-X isn't the gritty, rough film we got back in the 1970s). Xtol will give slightly better shadow detail, but it may not be enough difference to matter to you, or you may prefer the shadows a little less detailed.

I don't know if I could commit to a single film, EI, and process for that kind of time. I have no expectation of changing from replenished Xtol, but surely reserve the option to use Dektol, Parodinal, or Caffenol of some flavor if I want a different effect, and I shoot a number of different films -- at the least, Fomapan 100 and Fomapan 400, ORWO DN21 (aka Kino Babylon 13), and Tri-X from time to time (mainly when I want to push -- it pushes much better than Fomapan). For my own use, if I want EI 640-800, I'm likely to shoot XP2 Super and process with bleach bypass -- but that may not be an option for your location due to availability.

 

[NB23]

Expose. Develop.
Quite simple, really.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If you want to keep everything constant over that kind of time, it's probably worth finding ID-11 and looking up Ilford's instructions on mixing a second bag as replenisher for the first bag. Replenished Xtol is another fine choice (and simpler to do, since the developer is its own replenisher). Either one can be used with a suitable time adjustment to get your EI 640 (should be about 8 minutes at 20C or temperature compensated equivalent, in either stock developer, vs. 7 minutes for box speed and normal contrast). Either one will give the smoothest grain Tri-X can give (and modern Tri-X isn't the gritty, rough film we got back in the 1970s). Xtol will give slightly better shadow detail, but it may not be enough difference to matter to you, or you may prefer the shadows a little less detailed.

I don't know if I could commit to a single film, EI, and process for that kind of time. I have no expectation of changing from replenished Xtol, but surely reserve the option to use Dektol, Parodinal, or Caffenol of some flavor if I want a different effect, and I shoot a number of different films -- at the least, Fomapan 100 and Fomapan 400, ORWO DN21 (aka Kino Babylon 13), and Tri-X from time to time (mainly when I want to push -- it pushes much better than Fomapan). For my own use, if I want EI 640-800, I'm likely to shoot XP2 Super and process with bleach bypass -- but that may not be an option for your location due to availability.

Hello Donald, thanks for your answer...
I'll commit to Tri-X at 640 for street and soft light only... I use a different camera for direct sun (HP5+, orange filter), and HP5+ also for pushing when necessary... I use TMY-2 in FX-39 II in the Hasselblad for handheld work, and TMX for MF tripod work.
But the small Tri-X negatives for street will have to be tested... Many people say D-76 1+1 is the best option for Tri-X... That's also Kodak's recommendation, in order to keep highlights controlled when we uprate that film... That's an option away from stock and replenishment...
About replenished Xtol, some photographers say even if we can shape film's curve with it to enjoy that developers characteristics, it lacks the tonal brilliance of D-76 in the middle tones...
Some members prefer replenished D-76, and those who can't buy chemicals for the D-76R (some chemicals can't fly overseas), order Legacy Pro D-76 and D-76R from Freestyle, or the PF versions...
Yet I'll wait for a lot more comments from Photrio members...
Have a nice weekend!
By the way, your idea on ID-11, also recommended in another thread recently for replenishment with itself, sounds very very well for my case... Thank you very much!

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'm not a D-76 user -- I'm pretty sure I used it in the class darkrooms in high school (1974-1975) and college (1978-1979), but I'm certain I haven't since. I am a recent Xtol convert. I have no complaints on the result from Fomapan or ORWO DN21 -- the only films I've processed in it so far.

 

[Craig75]

Theres no need to underexpose it. Just develop it for longer if you want to it increase the contrast or leave it as it is if you want to print soft.

Only you know how you want to print your work.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Normally you'd develop for a longer time to adjust your contrast upward to account for the soft lighting. A Zone system photographer would call this N+1. There are many resources available on the Net to determine this but I'd start by upping the development time 15% from the regular time. Me, I'd use 10 minutes in D76 at 20 C.

 

[grain elevator]

I think you're overthinking this. I remember you used to search for sharp grain, now that you've dropped this search, what are you looking for? I have to admit I have no idea what tonal brilliance in the mid-tones is. Every developer can do mild expansion. If it isn't something very specific you're looking for, why not just use what is conveniently available to you and be done with it? And/or decide by the well-documented characteristics of developers like grain, speed, and environmental impact. I'm all for Xtol as it's pretty good on all counts, or other ascorbate developers.

 

[Pentode]

There are a lot of developers that will give you exactly what you’re looking for once you experiment a little bit with time and agitation schemes.

That said, count me as one of the members here who swear by Tri-X and D-76 1:1. It’s a tried and true combination. If the solvent effect is more to your liking, though, replenishing D-76 is also a great choice - likewise replenished Xtol, HC-110 dilution B or Rodinal 1+25 (the latter will produce bigger grain and, probably, less shadow detail but it still might be a look you like and, as Donald pointed out, the grain of modern Tri-X is a lot less prominent than that of earlier versions).

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Theres no need to underexpose it. Just develop it for longer if you want to it increase the contrast or leave it as it is if you want to print soft.

Only you know how you want to print your work.

No underexposure, just an appropriate EI for expansion.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I think you're overthinking this. I remember you used to search for sharp grain, now that you've dropped this search, what are you looking for? I have to admit I have no idea what tonal brilliance in the mid-tones is. Every developer can do mild expansion. If it isn't something very specific you're looking for, why not just use what is conveniently available to you and be done with it? And/or decide by the well-documented characteristics of developers like grain, speed, and environmental impact. I'm all for Xtol as it's pretty good on all counts, or other ascorbate developers.

I have not dropped my use of sharp grain... You can search midtone brilliance, you may find something... I look for different things that are indeed specific.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

There are a lot of developers that will give you exactly what you’re looking for once you experiment a little bit with time and agitation schemes.

That said, count me as one of the members here who swear by Tri-X and D-76 1:1. It’s a tried and true combination. If the solvent effect is more to your liking, though, replenishing D-76 is also a great choice - likewise replenished Xtol, HC-110 dilution B or Rodinal 1+25 (the latter will produce bigger grain and, probably, less shadow detail but it still might be a look you like and, as Donald pointed out, the grain of modern Tri-X is a lot less prominent than that of earlier versions).

That's why I think solvency can give better results these days. Few people take the time to test -wet printing- different developers and dilutions for identical negative frames... This is interesting with 35mm film.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

What about things like:

"Juan, when I exposed half a roll of the same overcast scene on current 35mm Tri-X and cut it in four parts, I tested them in D-76 and Xtol, both replenished and both 1+2, and I found I prefer -for wet printing- the results I got with x developer at y dilution, mainly because z, obviously in this particular case of a small negative enlarged to 12x16..."

Some of us consider that different to "go shoot with anything because you'll get an image."

Thanks!

 

[john_s]

...... I have to admit I have no idea what tonal brilliance in the mid-tones is......

I guess that is calling for an S-shaped curve, unlike an upswept or linear curve. What Ilford used to refer to in advertising as "mid tone sparkle."

 

[Latnemrob]

I re-read Juan's post twice and I do not understand what is the question. Tri-X and soft light is not challenging in any way, one doesn't need any special developer or "best" developer to get beautiful negatives, with contrast adjusted to taste during printing or scanning (that's also when "midtone brilliance" happens).

 

[NB23]

I’d like to see examples of what he’s talking about. So far it’s all hot air.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I love this site !

 

[Bill Burk]

I like shooting 400 speed Kodak film (TMAX-400 and Tri-X) at EI 250 (knowing that I am providing 2/3 stop greater than the minimum exposure for an excellent picture). I often shoot in overcast/subdued lighting conditions. Unless I am aiming for N+ or N- the time I dial into my compensating developing timer is 13:30 for D-76 1:1 - this is the time where I reach ASA parameters within tolerance.

What I get from this is a consistently high contrast negative suitable for enlarging with diffusion enlarger on grade 2 or 3 paper. I get details in shadows that I can dodge to reveal, and highlights that always retain a bit of texture or will show texture if I burn them.

Most other photographers develop for less time than I do, because less time gives a contrast suitable for condenser enlarger.

You mention you will shoot at 640, which is a slight underexposure. If you do that I hope you will develop at least as long as I do. I think you will find that at 640 with full development you can print with good separation of mid-tones without overblown highlights.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks a lot, Bill... With your personal experience and you nearness to Kodak I really appreciate every aspect of your comments.
Today I read Thomas B. talked (2016) about Xtol being a bit flat for overcast (though I use a condenser enlarger, so I imagine Xtol's shoulder wouldn't affect me as much as it affects someone who needs a contrastier negative, but of course I'm not really sure...) but really optimal for direct sun: then, possibly bad or not the best tonal option for my case...
In adition, Thomas, who's often totally right, also talked about replenished Xtol losing speed, close to half a stop... Again, my case is in need of speed...
Sorry about repeting myself: TMY-2 in FX-39 gives great clean tone at 1000, but I don`t want to use FX-39 for a non T-Max film... I thought there was going to be clear agreement about the best developer for Tri-X at 640 for overcast: I know a lot of options will work more or less, but after TMY&FX39 I know some things do work a lot better than others when they're designed with the film and type of use/light in mind...
Have a nice weekend.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Definitely several forum members saying Xtol replenished lose some speed, while in that regard Xtol 1+1 is better, and Xtol 1+2 is best, and clearly faster than D-76 stock, replenished or diluted...
Possibly Xtol 1+2, with its speed, sharpness, and higher solvency than D-76, could be an interesting option for 35mm TX at 640 in overcast...
I think, before I get Xtol again, I'll test TX in D-76 1+2 and see...
Thanks everyone!

 

[Donald Qualls]

I use replenished Xtol, and haven't seen either the loss of contrast or loss of speed -- but then I shoot Fomapan 400 at box speed (in Xtol replenished stock) and get good negatives too.

I should point out that I've so far processed less than a couple dozen rolls in the Xtol, but at the least, it ought to be fully seasoned by now. Here's a recent image:

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

What I know about sodium sulfide is it's related to speed: but to a degree, only... And it all depends on the developer's formula: diluting a developer can give us a little more speed, but it depends on every developer... And on every film... Is that small amout of speed important? Yes and no... When you use tripod and you can also repeat you photograph, who cares... But when you do street, and you don't use tripod, and you can't repeat your photograph, half a stop or two thirds mean a lot of speed, tonally speaking: it can allow us to use a smaller f-stop, and that's key if it gives you at the same time great tonality apart from faster shutter speeds and more DOF...
It's that gain in speed what can help me reach 640 as I need, being able to use a smaller f/stop with decent speeds, instead of working at 400... I've done it for many years with Microphen and HP5+, up to 1600, and I've done it for a year with FX-39 and TMY-2 up to 1000, but I have not done it for long with Tri-X, and I'm positive it can be done with a more standard developer that doesn't change tone or grain as much as speed enhancing developers... This is reality, not a magic bullet... Again, this is relevant and very visible for 35mm, and has no importance in other larger formats...
Has someone tested (or does anybody know) if D-76 has changes in its speed if we compare it stock, 1+1, 1+2 and replenished? Does it offer different speeds the way Xtol does?
Another fact is, even if a developer has its peculiar design, and films too, developers don´t do exactly the same to all films... For instance, some forum members have explained here at Photrio, Tri-X shoulders heavily in Xtol, and that's great for direct sun and high contrast, but terrible for overcast and soft light, where we need to expand the scene's contrast and reach good vibrant whites instead of compressed highlights... Those forum members have made clear Tri-X doesn´t shoulder the same way in other developers, and also that Xtol doesn´t make every other film shoulder to the same degree as with Tri-X...
So, what`s good or best for expanding 35mm Tri-X in soft light, and at which dilution? And a why, would be a plus...
If Photrio can't answer, who can in the world?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

One more fact by Photrio members: it's been said that undiluted D-76 can blow highlights easily, compared to diluted D-76...
Even knowing we control contrast with a shorter development time when needed, and also knowing some people may call blown highlights overcast skies included in a soft light scene (!), couldn't we consider undiluted D-76 a better option for expansion in soft light?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Or could it be that the flatness I saw from Xtol the two times I used it in the past, mainly for soft light rolls, meant that precise developer tends to produce a very present shoulder, and then we get flatter highlights contrast in general when we use it for film exposed under overcast skies?
If so, could we say my question -from the beginning- should have been "How can I make D-76 be as linear as possible with Tri-X at least in the shoulder section of its curve?"
Would the degree of dilution come into play then?

 

[Craig75]

Youre going to be nowhere near the shoulder in whats probably going to be iso 400 1/400 f5.6 / f8 light with a contrast scene of probably between 4 to 6 stops in diffused sun on a film that can probably capture 12 stops.