Tri-X 400 - HC-110B - 3:45 minutes

[Anon Ymous]

Heated cabinet, with the film cassettes clamped on as weights.

The uncommon weather we are having here right now may be a contributor.

I don't know exactly how it affects curl, the temperatures and time needed, humidity (?), but I've seen original Tri-X becoming terribly curly in heated cabinets. I don't know specific details about the conditions, but suffice to say that a contact print was impossible without 6 hands... (yes, 2 persons to hold the strips flat, one to place the glass)

 

[2F/2F]

Correction: fan, but no heat...or at least very, very mild heat.

 

[DanielStone]

ya 2f,

the film dryers stink at PCC . just cold air coming through those pipes...

also, people not picking up their film after they've processed it, and people flinging the doors open and shut. no wonder they complain of dust problems .

-Dan

 

[Larry Bullis]

Jumping in late here.

Some years back, probably 5 or so, after I saw that Kodak had changed the speed, I called them up and asked. I had been accustomed to great telephone support. This time, the guy on the line said something like (of course can't quote, it's a paraphrase): No, the film hasn't changed. They just looked at the results and decided that the time was too long, so they just cut it to 3:45.

I really hope they have canned that guy, and returned to real support. Haven't tested it lately.

Since I was teaching then and the students had been going along using the old times because we hadn't noticed, getting pretty decent results, we just continued with the old times.

Just before I hung it up, I was in the process of testing with "dilution H" and was getting a projected normal of ~ 11 minutes. It was still a bit contrasty, maybe close to a +1. What the densitometer (with patch tests) was telling me didn't exactly agree with what I was seeing in practice.

Has anyone called Kodak recently, or have they ditched their dialup support for films?

 

[BetterSense]

I'm trying to find good clear based film for my reversal experiments.

In my experience Fuji films dry crystal-clear. I'm not sure why I have to put up with purple tri-x negatives and pink Tmax negatives, but at least I can tell them apart I guess.

 

[fschifano]

35mm stocks of Tri-X will always have some tint no matter how much you fix it or wash it or treat it with HCA. It looks to me like the support is dyed. I don't find this with Tri-X 400 in medium format. Tmax films, by contrast, will be perfectly clear if they are fixed and washed thoroughly. Don't be overly concerned if any magenta dye remains after fixing. This will wash out completely after a few changes of water at processing temperature. Let the film soak, or agitate if you want to speed things up. Using a sulfite based hypo clearing agent is very effective at removing the magenta tint as well.

 

[pgomena]

The 3+ minute time is/was for Dilution A. The darkroom tech in the newspaper I used to work for would soup Tri-X in a gallon tank of replenished HC-110 Dilution A. She would put the rolls of 35mm on a lifting rod, put it in the soup, agitate a little, then let it sit. Good enough for newspaper work.

Peter Gomena

 

[DanielStone]

I've found that by pouring fresh fixer into the tank 1/2 way through the fix stage takes care of the purplish tint in the Arista Premium 400.

It might still have a little bit of a tint, but not the traditional "tri-x purple" negs that everyone seems to have.

I then use a clearing bath and a 10min wash(very small flow of water), pretty much NO tint left after that.

-Dan

 

[2F/2F]

The tint I get on the Arista is mild, but definitely there. I do a development (no pre soak), stop, fixer, 5 minute rinse, 5 minutes hypo clear with constant agitation, a quick rinse to take off the bulk of the HCA, and then 8 minute rinse (stopping the clock and moving the bottom roll to the top after each 2 minutes), then 30 seconds in Photo Flo 200 1:200.

The Arista also turns my fixer a tad bit pink, while Ilford films do not do this even a tiny bit, IME.

Strange...but really nothing to worry about, I guess.

Still, I wonder if it has the effect of mildly increasing contrast with VC paper.

Reminds me of something. When I worked for a museum exhibit preparation company, I did a very large organize/label/select/restore/digitize project on an old archive on negatives (teens through thirties, mostly). Most were 4x5. One of the interesting techniques that I saw used by the photographer was that he would paint yellow or magenta ink on to various portions of the negatives. I, of course, figured that this was for localized contrast control. However, when did yellow/magenta-sensitive VC papers come into existence?

 

[fschifano]

...when did yellow/magenta-sensitive VC papers come into existence?

I remember using them as early as the late 1960's - early 1970's. At the time I was using mostly Kodabromide, and didn't pay much attention to Polycontrast. I'm sure they were around even earlier than that.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I remember using them as early as the late 1960's - early 1970's. At the time I was using mostly Kodabromide, and didn't pay much attention to Polycontrast. I'm sure they were around even earlier than that.

This page has quite interesting information.

 

[Lee L]

Defender Varigram paper became widely available in 1940, and used a pale yellow to violet range of filters. DuPont later bought Defender and made other VC papers until the 1970's.

Lee

 

[df cardwell]

Tinted Base
Let the film sit in water overnight if you want to get a pure clear base. If you think you need one.

Is Freestyle Selling New Tri-X ?
Why would Kodak set aside film made over 3 years ago, that they could have sold over 3 years ago, to unload on Freestyle in 2009 ? Wouldn't it have been easier to sell a whole pile of the new stuff to Freestyle ?

What happens if you develop TX in KC-110b for 3 3/4 ' ?
Uh, try it and tell us ?

 

[Larry Bullis]

However, when did yellow/magenta-sensitive VC papers come into existence?

The idea is that yellow blocks blue light, the magenta blocks green.

 

[Carter john]

Just to throw a wench into the discussion, I wonder if the Arista Premium is actually the "new" Tri-X. I wonder if Kodak is using Freestyle to unload their old stocks of Tri-X (hence the old times would be better.) It seems to make sense -- otherwise it seems strange that Freestyle would be able to sell a Kodak product at such a low price. Just a thought with no actual info or testing to back it up. I don't shoot 35mm so I have no comparisons.

If this is the case, Freestyle will run out of the Premium eventually since it is not actually being manufactured anymore.

Vaughn

I thought the same thing today when I developed 'real' new TriX and they were less dense than the Arista I did a few weeks ago (exactly the same process except today it was 120).

 

[2F/2F]

I thought the same thing today when I developed 'real' new TriX and they were less dense than the Arista I did a few weeks ago (exactly the same process except today it was 120).

Was it Tri-X 320 or Tri-X 400?

 

[BetterSense]

FWIW, I bought at roll of 400TX at CVS and noticed no difference between it and my normal Arista Premium. There may be one, but I didn't notice one by looking at the negs or the contact sheets.

 

[Lee L]

My test of Arista Premium 400 vs new Kodak Tri-X from 11 months ago, both in Edwal 12 processed on separate runs:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Lee

 

[Carter john]

Was it Tri-X 320 or Tri-X 400?

New TriX 400 but 120.

 

[2F/2F]

My test of Arista Premium 400 vs new Kodak Tri-X from 11 months ago, both in Edwal 12 processed on separate runs:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Lee

I did not graph anything, but I got near-identical densities when shooting a MacBeth chart as well. I already knew they were the same, but I just had an itch to run the test, mostly so I could state that they were the same and have something other than human statements and logic to back it up.

P.S. I did the 400 only.