TFX-2 times?

MMfoto · Jun 3, 2006

I just got a bottle of TFX-2 from the photographer's formulary and there info pamphlet has some conflicting information in it. It say's to develop at 68F and that most films will require 10-14 minutes, but a little piece of paper that they slip in says 21 minutes for tri-x at 68F and 10 minutes at 80F. I'm wondering if they're is a typo somewhere and I don't want to wildly overdevelop my very first roll.

Does anyone have a good starting time for Tri-x 400?

Thanks!

MMfoto · Jun 5, 2006

Well... I just ran a roll of Pan F+ for 14 minutes 68F and they look pretty good! Can't wait to print 'em.

hortense · Jun 5, 2006

Tri-X

MMfoto said:
I just got a bottle of TFX-2 from the photographer's formulary and there info pamphlet has some conflicting information in it. It say's to develop at 68F and that most films will require 10-14 minutes, but a little piece of paper that they slip in says 21 minutes for tri-x at 68F and 10 minutes at 80F. I'm wondering if they're is a typo somewhere and I don't want to wildly overdevelop my very first roll.

Does anyone have a good starting time for Tri-x 400?

Thanks!

I think TFFX-2 is equivalent to Acutol. If so here is like that should get you close to development time for Tri-X.
http://www.digitaltruth.com/chart/old/trix_old.html

Gerald Koch · Jun 5, 2006

hortense said:
I think TFFX-2 is equivalent to Acutol.]

TFX-2 is a Photographer's Formulary version of Crawley's FX-2 formula said to be "improved". AFAIK, it has no relationship with Acutol.

reellis67 · Jun 5, 2006

There are few times listed for it, but in most of the old British Journal Annuals there are suggested starting times if I remember correctly. I've mostly seen it used in semi-stand or stand development though, where times are somewhat irrelevant.

- Randy

P.S. Gerald, I think the Acutol reference was for times rather than for chemical composition....

Alan Johnson · Jun 5, 2006

My old BJP annuals don't give times for Tri-X in FX-2 but the Tri-X time in the fine grain developer FX-11 is about 40% longer than that for FP4.
FX-2 time for FP4 is 13min for 35mm and 14min for 120.

MMfoto · Jun 5, 2006

Alan Johnson said:
My old BJP annuals don't give times for Tri-X in FX-2 but the Tri-X time in the fine grain developer FX-11 is about 40% longer than that for FP4.
FX-2 time for FP4 is 13min for 35mm and 14min for 120.

Alan, Have you used FX-11? I've been really interested in this developer, but have not had a chance to mix some up. I'd love to hear about your experience if you've had any...

MMfoto · Jun 5, 2006

So I printed the Pan F+ negs... My exposures are all over the place as usual... I think that 14 min is a little short, but pretty close. I'd give 16 or 17 next time.

Grain is very fine, as expected. Highlights are wonderful. Mid tone gradation not so hot, which IMHO is what you get with high accutance developers. Very sharp.

Both film and developer are new to me. I'd probably use Rodinal next time. I'll take tonality over grain.

Tri-x in TFX-2 coming up...

MMfoto · Jun 5, 2006

Oh and judging my Pan F time, I think I'll go ahead and try 21 minutes for Tri-x as the insert suggested.

df cardwell · Jun 5, 2006

TFX2 ought to give you a straight line through the midtones, there isn't any deficiency to it !

MMfoto · Jun 6, 2006

I just ran a roll of Tri-x 400. 21 minutes at 68F. Negs look good. A bit lower in density that I would usually prefer. We'll see how they print!

MMfoto · Jun 6, 2006

df cardwell said:
TFX2 ought to give you a straight line through the midtones, there isn't any deficiency to it !

I'm sure your correct. I'm probably misusing the term. Separation, gradation... Tonality is sufficiently vague enough to convey what I'm trying to say. Accutance developers, to me!, often seem to lack "richness" in the mid tones. I don't trust film curves to describe anything other than where tones will fall.

As always we are left with aesthetic preference. I just had a look at the dry prints. They look really good. Don't get me wrong! Just not what I'm looking for right now

MMfoto · Jun 19, 2006

Well, I ran a roll of TX 400 at the recommended time of 21' 68F, converted to 17' at 72F, at the recommended dilution. I am a little surprised by the results. The roll looks decidedly underdeveloped. The film leader is murkey and dark instead of maximum black, and the frames are thin. Everything worked fine with Pan F+. I'm pretty competant in the darkroom, but I feel like I must have screwed up somewhere. Will have to try again. The negs did print reasonably well with a grade 4 filter and the prints are really interesting. Rodinal esque grain and SHARP SHARP SHARP.

*edit*

Aw geez, I must be losing it... I already posted this! Sorry.

m_liddell · Jun 19, 2006

I thought TFX2 was optimised for T grain films?

Ole · Jun 20, 2006

The original FX-2 contains a little pinacryptol yellow, with the note that this should not be included for T-grain films. My first guess would be that TFX-2 is simply FX-2 without the pinacryptol yellow...

If in doubt, dilute 1:1 and give it 90 minutes stand development with agitation the first minute, and then again after a half hour. Everything I've tried has been fine after that treatment.

dancqu · Jun 21, 2006

Gerald Koch said:
TFX-2 is a Photographer's Formulary version of Crawley's
FX-2 formula said to be "improved". AFAIK, it has no
relationship with Acutol.

No relationship other than, IIRC, FX-2 and Acutol both
being Crawley formulations. Personally I don't like the
coat tailing; FX-2, TFX-2. Dan

waynecrider · Aug 20, 2006

Just to add to the database here, Tri-X 400 in TFX2 at 10 mins 80deg F per the developing sheet look short by 1/2 to 1 stop. I'd add 10-15% to start. No speed increase observed. I believe a speed increase will be a function of the developer diluted and used as a semi-stand to stand developer.

df cardwell · Aug 20, 2006

For some context about 'speed increase', place the notion into the 1960s.
D-76 would be a speed increasing developer, Rodinal would not. FX2 will be at least the equal of D76, a bit more shadow detail than Rodinal.

( the downfall of cut-and-paste photo writers is that we forget to set the data into the right era )

ALSO, develop for an overall good looking negative, not the boutique-black-and-white-fbf+.1 stuff. If the density is too low, develop longer. When you get it right, it will have full shadow speed, and long, unblocking highlights. More acutance, finer grain than Rodinal

waynecrider · Aug 21, 2006

Don if you pass this thread again, could you remark on what films you prefer when using this developer.

TFX-2 times?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency