Tri-X 400 vs T-MAX 400

[DREW WILEY]

ACROS is an entirely different category of pan - Orthopan. The only other recent film in this category I can think of was Efke 25.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

ACROS is an entirely different category of pan - Orthopan. The only other recent film in this category I can think of was Efke 25.

What is orthopan? I have been using 135 size Acros with great results. Praus Productions in Rochester develops it for me in Xtol. I recently bought another 3 pack from a Japanese seller.

 

[GLS]

What is orthopan? I have been using 135 size Acros with great results. Praus Productions in Rochester develops it for me in Xtol. I recently bought another 3 pack from a Japanese seller.

Basically a panchromatic film which has reduced red sensitivity.

 

[albireo]

Any comments from the Tmax+Trix experts on which of the two is easier to develop?

I've been mostly shooting Foma and TriX film, so traditional grain stuff, and find it pretty straightforward to process.

I've also recently tried some Delta 100 in 120, so a T-grain film like TMAX if I'm correct, and found it needs significantly more attention during processing than Foma film and TriX do. For example, in my tests it needs significantly more time in the fixer, or else the negatives will have what I can describe as a 'purple haze' to them.

Would longer fixing also be needed with TMAX film? Any thoughts much appreciated.

 

[Anon Ymous]

@albireo If you can take a reading from a thermometer and clock, then you're perfectly capable of developing TMax at least reasonably well. Have a look at the datasheet for development times and just don't be sloppy, that's all.

It is true that TMax films will be tougher to fix properly, but there's no reason to panic. First, take a clip of unprocessed film, like a film leader, and place a spot of your fixer on it. Leave it there for 30'', then submerge it in fixer. Stir as you'd do when fixing film and count the time it takes for the clear spot to disappear. Multiply this time by at least two and you have your fixing time. Three would be safer and definitely not excessive, that's what I do. Using this fixing time, at the same temperature that is, will properly fix your film. If your film still has a magenta cast, there's nothing really to worry about, it's just dyes that haven't leached out yet. Most of it will be removed at the washing stage. If some of it remains, and you care to remove it, then just fill your tank with water and let it just sit there. Flush it after 15' and have a look at the colour of the water. You might be amazed.

 

[radiant]

Stupid question: what is "normal" fixing time is 3-4 minutes and I want to make sure fixing is done properly; can I fix for 5 minutes without problems? I have automated tank agitation system so there isn't any difference if I run it for 3 or 5 minutes.

 

[GLS]

5 minutes in a relatively fresh fixer of the "rapid" type (i.e. ammonium thiosulfate based) should be more than enough for any B&W film.

 

[NB23]

5 minutes in a relatively fresh fixer of the "rapid" type (i.e. ammonium thiosulfate based) should be more than enough for any B&W film.

Tmax requires at least 5 minutes in fresh fixer and 7-8 minutes at the second or third cycles already. Go 10 minutes just to be sure.
Tmax films exhaust fixer much quicker than other films.

 

[Rudeofus]

If you use a neutral fixer, you would not be able to overfix. With an acidic fixer, there is some risk of bleaching if you fix way too long. 5-10 minutes should be fine with any fixer.

 

[GLS]

Tmax requires at least 5 minutes in fresh fixer and 7-8 minutes at the second or third cycles already. Go 10 minutes just to be sure.
Tmax films exhaust fixer much quicker than other films.

7 mins is generally the longest I go for T-Max films, and that is even with fixer that is up to its fifth cycle (after five cycles I discard it). It hasn't been an issue thus far. I use Ilford Rapid Fixer at 1:4.

As the next poster said though, leaving it in for 10 mins for peace of mind shouldn't cause any harm.

 

[MattKing]

Periodically check by using a clip test outside your automated process.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I use alkaline TF4 fixer. All of the pink residual antihalation dye washes out very quickly. 1:3 for 5 min.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you are having someone else develop your film I'd suggest it won't matter what you shoot. Getting what you want will be hit and miss at best, but you will probably get more consistent results with Tri-X.

 

[GregY]

"If you are having someone else develop your film I'd suggest it won't matter what you shoot. Getting what you want will be hit and miss at best, but you will probably get more consistent results with Tri-X."

....Well put Patrick R James. If someone else is processing your film you haven't got the necessary control over the entire process to get your imagined results.....

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why trust and pay a service to develop any kind of film is they aren't consistent with their parameters?

 

[mshchem]

Is there any film on the market that has nice big clumps of silver like the 1960s 70's Tri-X?

 

[GregY]

Drew, I think the point is, that if you don't know what you're metering (or how to meter) , & how to process accordingly..... then how can you ask someone to generically process your film.... & end up with the results you aspire to. I think that B/W film use requires some learning from the one behind the camera....& film processing is relatively straight forward to learn and inexpensive. Otherwise no matter who you chose to process your film.....it's much like the good old days of throwing your film in the envelope & putting it in the mail.....with the results being inconsistent. That's my opinion. What do you think?

 

[DREW WILEY]

In my neighborhood there is a lab that will develop most all popular films for you, and for a modest surcharge even offers several developer options besides their regular Xtol, plus contrast options. You are still responsible for properly exposing the film. But I've never used this kind of service, and right from the start learned how to develop my own film.

 

[radiant]

Calibrating your own development process seems to be really tedious work which needs real expertise - I think. First of all - to even notice the differences you need to shoot pretty similar things in similar light? Then to analyse the results you need to have some kind of way to measure it correctly. Scanning? Probably no? Darkroom prints? That's another journey.. And the most difficult part: you would need to know what you want before you even have it.

Let's assume that we use the negative for darkroom prints. So - if I use either Tri-X or T-Max, expose those "correctly" and use xtol the way Kodak has described, do I make mistakes that cannot be adjusted when printing? Will I notice after 20 years of shooting that I've destroyed my work by not "calibrating" my development process?

I'm asking this because it creeps me a bit when people say that everything should be calibrated, including fixing times (I thought one can trust the times by fix manufacturer!).

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you are having someone else develop your film I'd suggest it won't matter what you shoot. Getting what you want will be hit and miss at best, but you will probably get more consistent results with Tri-X.

Not true - if you work with a good custom/ professional lab. With most other developing services, all bets are off. As with most things, you get what you pay for.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

In the 1970s, Fred Picker wrote Zone VI newsletters about the perfect negative. He was deeply into the technicalities of developers, agitation, densities, etc. You can read his newsletters if you are interested in some procedures for calibrating your negatives. He was addressing sheet film, but you can apply it to roll film as long as you recognize that your frames can't get individual development time.

 

[John51]

Is there any film on the market that has nice big clumps of silver like the 1960s 70's Tri-X?

Not big clumps of grain but Kodak Double X is an old school movie emulsion.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What is the point of shooting the film if you don't have some specific application in mind? You have to somehow monitor your progress getting from Point A to B. It's like learning to ride a bicycle. At some point, if you want to learn how to ride a bicycle, you just gotta do it. Sure, there will be some scrapes and bruises; but how else are you going to learn? Buy a light meter and learn how to use it. Take a darkroom class. But if this calibration talk sounds too inconvenient, then don't complain if the results are unpredictable and disappointing. It won't be the fault of the film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Calibrating your own development process seems to be really tedious work which needs real expertise - I think. First of all - to even notice the differences you need to shoot pretty similar things in similar light? Then to analyse the results you need to have some kind of way to measure it correctly. Scanning? Probably no? Darkroom prints? That's another journey.. And the most difficult part: you would need to know what you want before you even have it.

Let's assume that we use the negative for darkroom prints. So - if I use either Tri-X or T-Max, expose those "correctly" and use xtol the way Kodak has described, do I make mistakes that cannot be adjusted when printing? Will I notice after 20 years of shooting that I've destroyed my work by not "calibrating" my development process?

I'm asking this because it creeps me a bit when people say that everything should be calibrated, including fixing times (I thought one can trust the times by fix manufacturer!).

If the shutter is not accurate, one needs to get the camera adjusted. Changing the film speed will not fix that problem.
If the light meter is off, it needs to be calibrated or the exposures will be under or over exposed. Changing the film speed would be hit or miss. If one cannot get the light meter corrected with the adjustment screw, it is worth spending less than $100US to get it properly adjusted rather than lossing one photograph after another futzing around.

 

[MattKing]

Calibrating your own development process seems to be really tedious work which needs real expertise - I think. First of all - to even notice the differences you need to shoot pretty similar things in similar light? Then to analyse the results you need to have some kind of way to measure it correctly. Scanning? Probably no? Darkroom prints? That's another journey.. And the most difficult part: you would need to know what you want before you even have it.

Let's assume that we use the negative for darkroom prints. So - if I use either Tri-X or T-Max, expose those "correctly" and use xtol the way Kodak has described, do I make mistakes that cannot be adjusted when printing? Will I notice after 20 years of shooting that I've destroyed my work by not "calibrating" my development process?

I'm asking this because it creeps me a bit when people say that everything should be calibrated, including fixing times (I thought one can trust the times by fix manufacturer!).

Thanks for this post.
If a lab is half decent, they won't ruin your film, and they will develop your film predictably.
All of which will give you the opportunity to tweak what you do to get the best results from what the lab gives back to you.
Yes, you can refine things further by doing your own developing, but the differences should be fairly subtle. And yes you can add a few more tricks to your toolbox if you have the ability to adjust both your exposure and your development, in tandem.
And of course, if you are reasonably methodical, you can learn to develop film well, and exactly the same way every time. Much like a good lab.
One point though about one of your observations. The discussions about fixing times aren't about calibration - they are about maximizing utility (capacity) and dealing with some special issues like residual dyes that sometimes show up.
The manufacturer's recommendations are sometimes more conservative than necessary.