Suggestions for Tri-X developer

[AZLF]

I have been shooting tri-x of late in 120 format. I develop the film in Nikor tanks at the kitchen sink. Because I had a stock of it on hand I have been using Microdol-X as the developer. I can't say that I have been knocked out by the results to date. Yeah I get negs that are usable but I'm curious as to what others have found that they like.

I also have an agitation question. The data sheet for Tri-X suggests agitating for 30 seconds of each minute of development. In one of the threads recently I thought I saw a suggestion of much shorter agitation times but I don't recall the thread now of the original subject. Any thoughts on agitation?

 

[Curt]

Try HC110 dil B.

 

[jim appleyard]

You can process Tri-X in most any developer; Microdol-X is a good one, although if you use the stock solution (not diluting it with water), you will find that you have to shoot Tri-X at and EI of about 200.

I would say that 30 sec. of agitation/ min is too much. I do Mic-X with Tri-X at 10 sec/min.

 

[AZLF]

Try HC110 dil B.

HC110 must be quite a developer. The times listed for dil.B are 1/3rd of those of Microdol-X. Or am I wrong in thinking that the shorter times indicate a much more potent(active) developing solution?

 

[PhotoJim]

14:00 at 20 degrees in PMK 1:2:100 at box speed works really well for me.

 

[waynecrider]

It really depends on what you are looking for, whether you want acutance (sharpness) or fine grain, whether a compensating developer for high contrast landscapes or a low contrast developer. This is why many use different developers to suit their subject matter. A developer for high contrast landscapes would be different then one for studio portraits. Be it as it may, many will use something like D76 and adjust dilution and developing time, and since you don't have the ability when shooting rollfilm to individually develop each frame, your stuck trying to develop many different possible situations which D76 can handle. Another recommendation would be Xtol, a fine grain developer that has good sharpness. There are so many ways to go here that it may be in your best interest to get a copy of The Film Developing Cookbook and educate yourself. Everyone here has their favorites; Many have experimented with all kinds of developers including 2 baths and have even created their own. Try some D76 or Xtol while you educate yourself and go from there. If you want to experiment great, but have something to fall back on that is a go to developer that you have spent time with..

 

[Wigwam Jones]

I totally agree with Wayne. Everybody wants a silver bullet - a magic elixir that will make their negatives sparkle. There is no such beast. Every developer serves a purpose, and most of them are so much alike that no expert could tell at a glance what developer was used on any given film.

And yet, some people do indeed make their negatives seem to sing. And strangely, they each have their own pet developer, seldom using the same stuff, or not using it the same way, or adjusting it with their own pixie dust. All of them will swear by the stuff, but it just doesn't seem to work the same way for others, to their disappointment.

The magic ingredient is experience. A master with Tri-X and D-76 needs no other tools. Or Rodinal. Or HC-110. Whatever. Pick one and do your best to master it. Then, in twenty years, try another if you still think it will make your negatives pop.

 

[Markok765]

I like rodinal stand 1:200 2.5 hours or d76 stock. with rodinal stand the negs are easier to print with minimal dodging\buring

 

[PhotoPete]

I have always been a fan of Tri-X in Diafine. Give it a whirl when you are evaluating developers.

 

[DBP]

Diafine is my standard for Tri-X. Pretty fool proof too.

 

[CLAPhoto]

I add my vote for Diafine.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Kinda hard to shoot Tri-X at EI 400 if you're going to process in Diafine, guys. And it is a contrast reducer - low contrast scenes go flat. But I agree that it is tops in available-light - great combo.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

I have been shooting tri-x of late in 120 format. I develop the film in Nikor tanks at the kitchen sink. Because I had a stock of it on hand I have been using Microdol-X as the developer. I can't say that I have been knocked out by the results to date. Yeah I get negs that are usable but I'm curious as to what others have found that they like.

I also have an agitation question. The data sheet for Tri-X suggests agitating for 30 seconds of each minute of development. In one of the threads recently I thought I saw a suggestion of much shorter agitation times but I don't recall the thread now of the original subject. Any thoughts on agitation?

See what I mean? Ever buddy and their dog has their pet developer and forumla. You're never going to get a unified answer, you'll be lucky if two photographers agree on anything like this. Pick a developer and get good at it.

 

[JBrunner]

Every developer serves a purpose, and most of them are so much alike that no expert could tell at a glance what developer was used on any given film.

Agreed. Except pretty much anybody can spot a PMK negative.

 

[P C Headland]

I like TriX in Diafine for my folders (6x6 and 6x9), rating it at EI1000. If I really need to shoot it at a lower EI, I'll use Rodinal 1+100.

But then, they are the only two developers I have to hand

 

[ZorkiKat]

D76 1+3. 13 to 16 minutes at 20C. Expose at official ISO 400. Fine tonal grading, with crisp grain.

 

[gnashings]

I think you are at a stage where you obviously know enough to be dissatisfied with something about your negs other than presence or lack thereof of an image. I would suggest you try to "identify" what it is you dislike exactly - then it would be easier to point you in the right direction.
But, as has already been said - this may simply be a case of preference. Have fun trying out new stuff. I like my TriX (especially in medium format) in Rodinal 1+50 or for certain things, pushed to 1000 in Acufine (actually more like 800, I think - not that there is a "real" speed with pushing - but that is a different thread). But again, there are people who will tell you that those two are the most horrible things one could ever apply to TriX. Do some tests, it will be fun, and you will probably end up with a couple of developers that work best for different conditions/effects/subject matter/etc.
You also can get such a myriad of different looks from D76/ID11 that its never a bad idea to try it. Easy to use, cheap, bullet-proof and very flexible.
A friend of mine shot some studio nudes on TriX (6x7), at I believe 200, souped it in Pyro and got gorgeous results. I could go on, but I am sure you got the point a couple paragraphs ago

Peter.

 

[photobum]

I had been searching for the silver bullet for 40 years. I always have come back to Tri-X and D-76 1+1. For the last three years the only thing I change is developing time with sheet film. Roll film only if theres something soft or harsh on most of the roll.

Pick any good standard film/developer and stay with it. Learn it upside down and inside out. After you have picked your film/developer stop reading articles and threads about other chemicals.

The Lone Ranger died a hundred years ago, taking with him the knowledge of the source of his silver bullets.

 

[Petzi]

I wonder how people can make all these statements when there are two different Tri-X films that come on 120 rolls. I would assume the processing times are not the same?

 

[AZLF]

Thank you all for your suggestions. I should have provided more detail with my initial question. I using a Mamiya 6x4.5 for my 120 shooting although I have a Mamiya C-3 I dig out on occasion. I also have a couple of 6x7 roll film backs for my 4x5" view cameras as well. But of late it is mostly the 6x4.5. I am shooting portraits and head shots(mostly of women) in varied locations. My latest subject is a young lady from work who is quite generous with her time. I have used Microdol-X for years but mostly with ASA100 film and I usually prefer the 1:3 dilution.I love the results with the slower speed,finer grained film. My results with Microdol and Tr-X is okay but to my eye the combo is not optimum. Which is why I asked for alternate suggestions. Attached is a shot from my last shoot with Ashley. My scanner does not do the neg justice. I'm having a contact sheet made this week to see what the negs really look like.

 

[Petzi]

That's interesting, but you have still not told us whether you use Tri-X 400 (TX) or Tri-X 320 (TXP).

For portrait, you should probably use Tri-X 320 (aka TXP).

 

[waynecrider]

The bright bark and background pulls my eye away from the head growing out of the tree. I think a head and shoulders shot would have been a better referenced shot.

 

[AZLF]

That's interesting, but you have still not told us whether you use Tri-X 400 (TX) or Tri-X 320 (TXP).

For portrait, you should probably use Tri-X 320 (aka TXP).

I've been using the tx-400.

 

[Petzi]

TXP is finer grained and designed to be a portrait film. It has been stated many times here in the forum.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I agree you're going to get a million different suggestions if you ask a million different people. Microdol-X is definitely a good developer for Tri-X.
I use Pyrocat-HD and sometimes Rodinal for really gritty negs. It doesn't really matter in the end, as long as you're proficient with what you use. The differences between different developers is not that great, and you can keep searching for the optimum developer for a long time. Many suggestions have been made about Diafine, and it's as good a recommendation as any. I've tried it, and it works. Microdol-X works, Rodinal works. I would not make my mind up until you start printing the negs. Run a test between what you're using now and one other developer shooting under controlled lighting, make a couple of prints and see if the difference is what you expected. I'm pretty sure the difference will be very small. I use what I use because it works and it's economical. It also hardens the emulsion, which I like.
- Thom