Tri-X in D-76 stock: better than diluted 1+1 ?

[Juan Valdenebro]

If you are trying to improve upon the performance of D76 1:1 you should just use XTol. If you are trying to improve upon the performance of XTol 1:1 you should use XTol replenished. If you are still not satisfied then it's time for a larger format or TMax 400.

Xtol is not an improvement over D-76.
I use MF and LF too.
I use TMY too.
I'm very satisfied with 35mm, and also with 35mm Tri-X.
There's a reason why Oskar Barnack preferred the small format. It's another world. You can't handhold MF or LF getting the same amount of DOF: that's its strength and visual personality.

Good night.

 

[Danner]

Recently went form XTOL 1:1, now using XTOL stock. There's a noticeable improvement. Especially HP5, where the grain looks much better. Nice mid-range tones too.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Right now I'm in the middle of a 35mm roll of HP5+ and finishing a MF roll of HP5+ too: both to test stock D-76, because -I agree- it's a film that could look better in a stock developer... We'll see.
And the tone of HP5+, often called soft and flat, might get more relative bite in the highlights from stock solution use. After liking Tri-X and TMY in D-76 stock better than in 1+1, I see no reason to imagine a different situation in the case of HP5+: its grain can be too present in 35mm when dilute developers are used.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It doesn't matter in LF... It barely matters in MF... But for 35mm photography, grain and developer dilution can be paramount...

I had never done it, but for TX I see I prefer stock: to my surprise, grain is not dissolved ! It's sharp but very small !
Why is more common 1+1? Maybe cost?
Stock is truly great for 320 and 640.
By the way, images are sharp as with 1+1, and resolving of fine detail is superb even at 640.
The same for TMY (same development times using stock...), but with some more shadow detail and resolving power.
I guess the situation was a little different with films available three or four generations ago.

May depend on the film but I prefer it at 1+1

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

May depend on the film but I prefer it at 1+1

Hello Ralph, great to see you here...
Do you mean for 35mm grainier films ?
Have you seen grain is not dissolved with stock solution, and acutance is high?

 

[Kino]

Not everyone strives for the same effect. There is no one proper way to use a developer; it depends on what you want and what you like in your finished image.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Not everyone strives for the same effect. There is no one proper way to use a developer; it depends on what you want and what you like in your finished image.

Hi Kino,
I don't know if you imagined I didn't know not everyone strives for the same effect, or if you thought I consider there's only one way to use a developer: just in case, I know about all that, and I'm fine with all that.
I don't know either if you noticed people have repeated for three generations "Tri-X is better in D-76 1+1 because if we use stock, grain is dissolved and the image is less sharp": well, maybe materials today are others, and the grain in current Tri-X is very small: it's, for sure, not the grain that made our grandfathers say 1+1 is better... Today the situation is slightly different or totally different: everyone can choose... And some other people will say "today the situation is identical."
Just in case again: I'm fine with people extending that confusion for some more generations...
I just share reality here for those interested in the future: no interest in anyone sharing my opinion this year or the next one...
Thanks for sharing your ideas in this thread.

 

[Kino]

Hi Kino,
I don't know if you imagined I didn't know not everyone strives for the same effect, or if you thought I consider there's only one way to use a developer: just in case, I know about all that, and I'm fine with all that.
I don't know either if you noticed people have repeated for three generations "Tri-X is better in D-76 1+1 because if we use stock, grain is dissolved and the image is less sharp": well, maybe materials today are others, and the grain in current Tri-X is very small: it's, for sure, not the grain that made our grandfathers say 1+1 is better... Today the situation is slightly different or totally different: everyone can choose... And some other people will say "today the situation is identical."
Just in case again: I'm fine with people extending that confusion for some more generations...
I just share reality here for those interested in the future: no interest in anyone sharing my opinion this year or the next one...
Thanks for sharing your ideas in this thread.

Well, Juan, thanks for that passive aggressive complement. I want you to know I am fine with your actions, because you know some people act that way and I am cool with that.

I don't know if you know, not everyone processes their film the same way even with the same materials, so opinions can vary and that's cool too.

And for the record, no one has a patent on reality, so the future is naturally not dependent upon any one person's interpretation, but thank you for sharing your opinion.

Have a nice day.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I was not passive aggressive at all: I was totally clear.
Saying people are different, did nothing for a thread on the subject of stock D-76 not dissolving grain.
Anyway, you're kindly invited to post whatever you want again.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

no one has a patent on reality

You're wrong. Here's a patent on reality for you:
Reality is when you and I develop Tri-X in D-76 stock, and there's a type of grain as a result of that process. Both of us get the same grain. It's sharp. Go check it and be part of this subject.
So, this thread is about reality, not about saying people are different and want different things.
I'm not a stock advocate. I use D-76 1+2 when I want more grain, and I have no problem if you or any other forum member prefer 1+1 just because: but all that has no relation with this thread.
All this thread is about, is current Tri-X, with its smaller grain, seems to be sharper now than before, when we develop it in D-76 stock. Reality on stock and 1+1, can be different now.
And you didn't talk about it: you only said people are different, and I told you I know, and I also told you I'm fine with all members preferences, but D-76 stock gave me totally sharp grain and high sharpness and acutance.
Quite simple.
And again without any passive aggressive content: this is a public forum, and of course you're in your right to post here whatever you want.
But if you get unsharp grain from Tri-X in stock D-76, that would be interesting to me...
Good night, Kino. No harsh feelings at all.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello Ralph, great to see you here...
Do you mean for 35mm grainier films ?
Have you seen grain is not dissolved with stock solution, and acutance is high?

I rarely use 35mm film; mainly 120 and sometimes 4x5; so grain is not really an issue;For me it's all about tonality.

 

[cliveh]

Sliced bread is the best thing since D76 at 1:1.

 

[cliveh]

I’m giving myself a pat on the back for that one. Best research I’ve ever done.

And so you should. Well done in correcting my original quote.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I rarely use 35mm film; mainly 120 and sometimes 4x5; so grain is not really an issue;For me it's all about tonality.

Tonality is better for overcast scenes with stock D-76, in all formats...
Of course, if I do tripod work under direct sunlight, I don't use stock.

 

[Bill Burk]

1:1 is used to save money.
I prefer stock D76, found my negs had more sparkle.

1:1 definitely saves money.

It's what makes using D-76 as a "one-shot" developer economical. I am going to go out on a limb and say without checking, when you try to honor recommended capacity, using D-76 1:1 and tossing uses about the same amount of developer as using it stock in a large tank (without replenishment). I feel like I'm getting good value for the money.

When I use D-76 stock, I feel like I am wasting money because I still use it one-shot in small tank. But then I am justifying the waste because I am trying to accomplish something specific.

You say your negs have more sparkle, and that could be.

I know that I use D-76 stock when I want higher contrast index and reasonable short development times.

I never really look at my negatives for "sharpness", "edge effects", "soft grain", "fine grain". I like them all.

I just want developing times between 7 and 64 minutes. Between 7 and about 18 minutes I use D-76 1:1 and between about 12 minutes and 64 minutes, I use D-76 Stock.

 

[Bill Burk]

I’m giving myself a pat on the back for that one. Best research I’ve ever done.

I loved that too.

One time I tried to get maximum graininess by developing fresh Tri-X in Dektol.

It sort of worked but it also sort of didn't. I never really got the "golfball grain" I was looking for.

The main reason the grain was big was because I used half frame.

Now I am intrigued.

I believe there is a difference in grain whether film is developed in D-76 stock or D-76 1:1 but I think it's subtle.

A real artist will notice the difference in their own negatives, will want it a certain way and develop their film that way to get it.

I'm not that sensitive as an artist. But I am curious about how much difference there is between D-76 stock and D-76 1:1, assuming similar subjects and film developed to the same contrast index.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I had the same experience. Stock Xtol is insane, and HP5+ simply sings in it. D76/ID-11 is only slightly worse though, notably in the grain structure department.



Tonality is not a thing. It's a meaningless made-up term of subjective value without technical weight behind it. It lives next to 3d pop and leica glow. Xtol is better than D76 because it delivers tighter grain and it's easier to "bend" your film's characteristic curve with it - the highlights are better protected. Given that you just now learned such a basic fact that diluting D76 is not a good idea, perhaps you should reserve your judgement on other developers until you discover what they're capable of?

No, Gregg.
Tonality is a thing.
And Stock tonality with D-76 is different from 1+1 or 1+3: it's called science, as it's predictable.
I've developed for 35 years. It's other people who say 1+1 is always better, or Xtol is always better.
I use different developers and dilutions depending on subject and light.
And of course we disagree: I don't think diluting D-76 is a bad idea. It's the best idea sometimes.
And about Xtol, the world is full of horrible photographs made with Xtol by people who think Xtol makes better photographs.
I'm glad your photography is away from that serious problem.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Bill,
Great two posts your last ones.
Yes, the difference between D-76 stock and 1+1 is subtle if we talk about grain. A bit smaller and tighter for sure if we use stock. Maybe even hard to see from viewing distances. But tone is different: highlights and medium to light grays are brighter, and I like them more for soft light scenes.
What I found, and the reason for this thread was, stock D-76 makes negatives with high sharpness, high acutance, and totally sharp grain, and it's common to hear exactly the contrary all around.
Xtol is very enjoyed by people who consider the absence of grain makes a photograph a better one, but that's not what makes a photograph good.
What I heard for decades was stock D-76 makes a photograph lose sharpness, and that was not true, or at least it's not true with today's films and today's D-76.
All developers can be well used, obviously, but I don't think a single developer at a single dilution is the best option for all types of light or for very different subjects.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I loved that too.

One time I tried to get maximum graininess by developing fresh Tri-X in Dektol.

It sort of worked but it also sort of didn't. I never really got the "golfball grain" I was looking for.

The main reason the grain was big was because I used half frame.

Now I am intrigued.

I believe there is a difference in grain whether film is developed in D-76 stock or D-76 1:1 but I think it's subtle.

A real artist will notice the difference in their own negatives, will want it a certain way and develop their film that way to get it.

I'm not that sensitive as an artist. But I am curious about how much difference there is between D-76 stock and D-76 1:1, assuming similar subjects and film developed to the same contrast index.

I found exactly the same. Dektol didn't make Tri-X a huge grain film: even more, grain was not clearly different from film developers... And that reflects Dektol was recommended for film development many decades ago...
I did tests for big grain with dektol, D-76, and microphen, both with and without Na2CO3, 2-6 grams per roll, with all films I had at hand. An interesting thing was while some films did get big sharp grain with good tone at speeds above EI1000 in microphen 1+3 with the speeding addition of sodium carbonate, Foma400 (a slowish film I hate in general) got great big sharp grain and very beautiful tone for overcast at EI320. Not EI3200 !
If you ever want to try it: Microphen 1+3, 2g Na2CO3, 25 Celsius, 9 minutes, 1 minute continuous agitation first, 4 inversions every 30 seconds for 4 minutes, and 4 inversions every minute for the remaining time.

 

[Lachlan Young]

One time I tried to get maximum graininess by developing fresh Tri-X in Dektol.

It sort of worked but it also sort of didn't. I never really got the "golfball grain" I was looking for.

I'm not surprised really - most universal-ish developers tend to give an extremely clean, crisp straight-line result with very very low fog, but while they aren't solvent/ fine grain, they aren't terribly coarse either - with correctly exposed film. Overexposure (or at least some fiddling with the indexing of values, relative to CI used) & processing to a high aim CI will produce a dense flat neg, which then can be printed at G5 to bring out granularity to intense effect.

I believe there is a difference in grain whether film is developed in D-76 stock or D-76 1:1 but I think it's subtle.

I think that in a double blind test done under well controlled conditions, you would see a small difference, but might struggle to definitively ascribe certain properties to 1+1 or 1+0 dilutions because of socially ingrained ideas about the effects of dilution on certain emulsion characteristics. I suspect that getting results that were truly better than chance at identifying 1+0 or 1+1 might be challenging.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

One time I tried to get maximum graininess by developing fresh Tri-X in Dektol.

It sort of worked but it also sort of didn't. I never really got the "golfball grain" I was looking for.

Maybe the wizards at @ADOX Fotoimpex should seriously consider releasing a grain-enhancing developer that gives the golf-ball grain that many users seem to want from Tri-x.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Maybe the wizards at @ADOX Fotoimpex should seriously consider releasing a grain-enhancing developer that gives the golf-ball grain that many users seem to want from Tri-x.

You can get the effect with Rodinal, if you use it correctly.

 

[stuartwalker121]

This is all fine guys...
But remember W. Eugene Smith's maxim that most of the important work for the final finished print is done in the darkroom.

In the Darkroom with W. Eugene Smith

In early March of 1955, W. Eugene Smith steered his overstuffed station wagon into the steel city of Pittsburgh. He’d been on the road all day, leaving that morning from Croton-on-Hudson, New York, where he lived in a large, comfortable house with his wife and four children, plus a live-in...

www.theparisreview.org

 

[cliveh]

I don't use D76 at 1:1 to save money, but for consistency in results, as it is discarded after use. With stock D76 you are dependent on replenisher, unless of course you discard stock after use. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[eli griggs]

Same here.

I tried replenishment, did no like the prints any better than 1:1, so I let it drop and never looked back.