• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

tri-x history (and d76 history)

Fortepan 400, which was made in an ex-Kodak plant, had a look much like Tri-X with more controlled highlights. I doubt it was the exact Kodak formula of the 1960s (though I've seen that claim made), because I'm fairly sure that they would have had to make changes with changes in the price of silver over the years and general shortages in Eastern Europe, but it was of that family.
 
This might seem like a silly response, but...

If you want the look of 1970s Tri-X, Paul, perhaps simply cropping new Tri-X slightly will work.

If grain is finer and the image is sharper, slight cropping will reduce sharpness and increase grain. My guess is that gradation has improved along with these improvements, and will be commensurately reduced with cropping. If so, cropping (or alternatively using a slightly smaller format - e.g. half frame) might give you the equivalent of using 1970s film.

I realize that that will change perspective and such as well, but it might be the easiest answer.
 

PE, my suggestion was intended to be a little bit humorous as I am sure that book would take you several years and be a few thousand pages long and I don't know that Kinko could actually bind it. And I am guessing a "small fee" wouldn't quite cover it.
Dennis
 

I should have mentioned that my thoughts apply only to Formapan 400 in 35mm, the 120 and large format FormaPan seems to be very much differnt, has that blue film base. But for that classic 35mm old TriX Forma Pan 400 in 35 is very inexpensive from Freestyle sold under house brand.
 
PhotoJim said:
Both are good. I mix my D-76 from scratch, but when I bought it, I bought Ilford's ID-11 in preference because it is sold in Canada in metric measurements, and Kodak sells D-76 here in US quart and gallon packages.
Click to expand...

You should move to Québec, because I just bought a 1L packet of D-76...
 
Try it in Dektol 1:3 for 3 minutes or 1:7 for 7 minutes. That should degrade the image a bit.

PE
 
It's probably heresy here on APUG, but I'm thinking post-processing (PS, GIMP, etc.,) is the easiest route, at least for images intended for web display.

For images intended for optical printing, I think Rodinal gives a slightly different look than D-76 and might be worth a try.
 
mhv said:
You should move to Québec, because I just bought a 1L packet of D-76...
Click to expand...

Yes, at last, 1L packages, but I already have all the stuff to make D-76 from scratch.

The larger packages are still 1 US gallon, as far as I know.
 
I've been getting the option of 1 L packs of both D76 and Dektol for years here. It is a standard Kodak item.

PE
 
pierods said:
So the gist of it is that if I buy a roll of 400 tri-x today, I will be able to get the same results as a photographer would in the early 70s, with some darkroom tweaks, right?
Click to expand...

No. The films have changed, although the general "look" is similar. You can manipulate Tri-X in the darkroom, but it is a different film, with slightly different characteristics, than what you got in the 70s. The changes have generally resulted in improvements, so, if anything, the results may be a bit better.
 
GeorgesGiralt said:
Hi !
I've read, in a book written by Mr Eaton IIRC, that D76 has changed many times because the original formula gained activity upon storage.
....
Click to expand...

The activity of D-76 often did change in storage. It still does. The problem was studied extensively, and I remember reading about what they found. Unfortunately, I've forgotten the final conclusions, and I can't find anything on it. It had to do with changing pH. Two things come to mind: the developer could pick up CO2 from the air, and all alkaline solutions will dissolve soda lime glass to some extent.
 
Concerning the look of 1970 Tri-X. I assume your trying to get a vintage look. I used Tri-X during the 60s and early 70s. it was a little more grainy back then. Suggest you consider the paper and not worry about the current Tri-X except to rate it at 400. The vintage looks sometimes seems a little dark. Look at an old Pop Photo or Modern Photography.

Tonight I enlarged with EMAKS #3. Looking at the prints in the wash it hit me the prints had a vintage look vs Ilford Warmtone I often use. The look was brilliant midtones with highlights just a tad to washed out. Kinda like snap shots you see from the 40s and 50s.
 
While there have been evolutionary changes in both D-76 and Tri-X over the past 50 years,
as PhotoEngineer has demonstrated, they have been minor and don't account for much difference in an image made today, and one made in 1960, 1970, or 1980.

If you want to emulate the Sieff "look", you might consider what HAS changed.

First, look at the equipment. A state of the art Nikon FTn of 1970, with its cds meter and mechanical shutter, it is downright primitive compared to electronic shutters and meters today. It was essential to NEVER underexpose a shot, so - by today's critical standards - most shooters made overexposed images.

Temperature control in the darkroom in 1970 was done, in the BEST labs, with a couple big, and expensive, Kodak Process thermometers. Even so, it is easier today to have optimally controlled baths in your basement lab than in the best labs in New York or Paris of 1970.

If one souped their own film, it was nearly always D-76 1+1. Everybody had their own technique, and since they were working pros, consistent results were more important than 'perfect negs'.

If you had a lab soup your film, it was likely to be done in a mature replenishment line which gave subtle results which were, and are, impossible to reproduce in a home darkroom.

Lighting was different. Often, photofloods or more readily available PARs were used to replace or augment available light. Shooting under uncorrected tungsten light gives a different color response than under daylight. Electronic flash was harder to work with then. Small units had low power, and before thyristor circuits, their output varied considerably. Studio flash was heavy, and tended to stay in the studio. Film was often "pushed" to 1600, which made empty blacks and hot highlights.

So, compensating for the myriad technical difficulties, any shooter had to overexpose a little, which was sometimes magnified by equipment, and either underdeveloped or overdeveloped as needed. Bleaching film, and prints, was essential more than we'd like to remember.

But the most important variables were the ZEITGEIST and the shooter. Crawl into Sieff's head, and try to get was he was looking at, and what he was seeing. Try to understand the time he made his pictures, and what he was trying to accomplish.

Finally, Sieff and all the shooters of the day were shooting for magazine reproduction. The tonal response, at the best publications, was quite limited. A black was determined by how much ink the press could lay down, and a white determined by the paper stock. Photographers made a large amount of their income from secondary usage of the images, so Life or Match might pay for all the expenses of your big shoot, and give you the chance to shoot a lot of film that other clients might be able to use, but your rent and booze money usually came from the smaller magazines that had good, but inferior, reproduction than did the biggest publications. SO, you always composed your pictures in 5 basic tones: black, white, and 3 contrasting shades of gray. If a picture was placed in a good newspaper, much subtlety was lost but the picture looked good. If it ran in a high class magazine, it looked even better.

So. While "LOOK" of the '50s, '60s, and '70s was partly due to Tri-X and D-76,
and D-76 and Tri X have changed a bit since each decade,
the film and developer isn't the issue. HOW they were used,
and what had to be accomplished by a specific shooter is everything.

Visit the Magnum website for a comparative look at great images for publication since WW2:

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive...&SP=photographers_list&l1=0&XXAPXX=SubPanel10
 
Last edited by a moderator:
df cardwell said:
...If you had a lab soup your film, it was likely to be done in a mature replenishment line which gave subtle results which were, and are, impossible to reproduce in a home darkroom.
Click to expand...

Hey, thank you so much!

Could you elaborate on the part about replenished developer? Here in Brussels there is nobody to ask to, the old timers keep their "secrets"!
 
I hope PE or Carnie wander by !

In the old days, before the world was color, commercial labs developed film in large tanks.
Some still do. As developer was used up, a modified developer formula was added in precise amounts to keep the activity constant. Development by-products accumulated in the solution, and the resulting negatives were often ... different ... than using one shot developer at home. It didn't hurt that a lot of shooters had a special darkroom guy who KNEW what the photographer wanted and, like a winemaker or cheesemaker, practised photo-alchemy. It was sometimes a factor in the subtle quality of an old picture. One guy in Paris assured me that HIS astonishing results were due to the Gauloises he chainsmoked, the ash that fell into the developer having some amazing effect. But I was a 20 year old American kid and probably looked like I'd believe him.

Replenishment is impractical in small darkrooms because it's success depends on a lot of film going through the lab every day. Find somebody running a dip-and-dunk machine and if he/she is good, pay whatever they want. Otherwise, get your D-76 under control and go make lots of pictures. A lot of the 'old secrets' SHOULD remain secrets !
 
Kodak made special film and print developers for the photofinsiher. These developers were not available to the hobbyist AFAIK unless you wanted to use huge amounts. I remember mixing the replenisher in tanks as tall as I was.

The developer had the color of mud after replenishment for month after month and was never replaced, just replenished constantly. The machines had replenishment settings for throughput, but the boss used "Kentucky Windage" to get the results he wanted. He jammed a pair of print tongs under the replenisher flow float to tweak the flow rate. I gradually learned how to do it by the feel of the tongs under the float. It had to be just right, or the flow was off and prints were too light or too dark.

Yes, times were different then. I spent hours sitting in front of Kodak model IV and III printers judging negatives +, N+, N, N-, and - for printing, and my error rate was about double the boss' rate. He was a master at this. But I learned a lot from him and probably made more prints in 4 - 5 years under his instruction than many have in their entire lifetime. That does not count what I learned in the AF.

Those were heady years for analog photographers.

PE
 
I'm so glad to see you posting again Don!
 
Well guys, that's all very fine and dandy, and very kind of you, but how do I go about those special qualities of replenished developer in my paterson 2-reel tank?
 
pierods said:
Well guys, that's all very fine and dandy, and very kind of you, but how do I go about those special qualities of replenished developer in my paterson 2-reel tank?
Click to expand...

For replenished D-76 you have to develop straight up in full-strength solution, no 1+1 dilution one shot. Pour the solution back into your full-strength bottle, and add replenisher computed on the amount of film you just processed. Over time the developer will season and should give you a "different" look. Kodak used to sell D-76 replenisher, may still, but it can be made from scratch also.
 
Yes, PPDs were used in many early developers to get good, high quality images. Unfortunately, they were slow developers in many cases and also tended to cause skin rashes.

So, if you do use PPD, please wear gloves. Of course, other PPDs can be substituted such as CD-3 and CD-4 although I believe that CD-1 and CD-2 were more popular about 50 - 75 years ago.

PE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register