Tri-X in rodinal, because I don't know better?

bjorke · Nov 8, 2005

Okay here's a first frame -- I'm going slowly, sorry

Pacific Grove, Monterey, 2005

HP5 645 negative, Rodinal 1+100 stand dev'd 2.5 hours

Click the image to see a larger version on flickr

Tri-X 35 to come...

bjorke · Nov 8, 2005

Here is 35mm Tri-X at effectively ISO 1600:

Here it is down a stop (metered ISO 3200):

As ever, click-through these to see a larger version.

Simon R Galley · Nov 8, 2005

A Note From ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Dear all on this thread,

My name is Simon and I work for ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited, I have joined APUG ( an organistaion known and admired by ILFORD ) so as I can receive feedback from this key, and valued area of our end user base and also give some product information where needed and to voice some future 'ideas' being discussed at ILFORD Photo, HARMAN Technology:

If you would like to contribute, we would appreciate it, I have a thread going on the product availability forum, sub section 'PERCEPTOL Lives'

Kind Regards

Simon.

timeUnit · Nov 8, 2005

bjorke,

Inspired by your results and propagation of stand development I just put a 120-roll of TX rated at ISO 800 in a Paterson tank with 6 ml of Rodinal and 600 ml of water. I presoaked for 2 minutes, poured in the developer, agitated for 15 seconds, rapped (yo?) and let it stand. My plan is for it to stand for 2 hours 15 minutes. Hopefully this will give me like 800-1000 ISO, or should I shorten the time more?

I'll report back with the results.

*henning

bjorke · Nov 8, 2005

timeUnit said:
120-roll of TX... My plan is for it to stand for 2 hours 15 minutes. Hopefully this will give me like 800-1000 ISO, or should I shorten the time more?

This is "regular" tx not txp?

It's probably too late now but I'd say you're likely to be overdeveloped.

My personal aim in doing this was to find a mortenson-style ISO where additional development essentailly does nothing, then aim my exposures so that the highlights juuuust come short of burnout. I'm also combatting the reality that detail I can ever-so-slightly see in the negative doesn't always actually get onto the scan (and I'm reluctant to do a lot of 35mm printing these days -- 645 okay, but 35 is a pain).

I'm now thinking that the ISO 2400-3200 range is probably about right for tri-x, but (as described earlier) a lower number for HP5. This is all very much a lot of semi-directed noodling on my part, so far.

timeUnit · Nov 8, 2005

bjorke said:
This is "regular" tx not txp?

It's probably too late now but I'd say you're likely to be overdeveloped.

Yep, this is TX, Tri-X 400. Have looked at the negs now, and sure, they are a bit overdeveloped, but not insanely so. I don't have a desitometer so I can't say what the values are.

The big problem: uneven development. There is more density on the "left" side of the negs than on the right. I guess the developer has "sunk" and there was more activity at the bottom of the tank.

bjorke,
is there absolutely nothing you do with the tank to ensure that the development is even from top to bottom?

See attachment for examples of unevenness.

bjorke · Nov 8, 2005

timeUnit said:
The big problem: uneven development. There is more density on the "left" side of the negs than on the right. I guess the developer has "sunk" and there was more activity at the bottom of the tank.

Interesting -- didn't get that. I think you're starting to fog actually. I ran the HP5 120 on the bottom of a tall tank (HP5 less vulnerable?) and the 35mm tri-x on top of that (where the variation is less pronounced)... looks like a better timing for TX might be something shorter, before this fogging might set in. Or maybe give it one inversion at mid-time... try stuff, it's that simple -- especially considering that the idea is to find something in the particular character of any process that meshes and appeals to something specific in your own shooting: overexposed, underexposed, they all have the potential to look like SOMEthing, to mean SOMEthing. It's the finding out and grasping that's half the fun

timeUnit · Nov 8, 2005

Yeah, you're right. Experimenting IS fun. And I think you might be right about fogging. One can see that the film base is denser on the left side. The base definetely didn't get any exposure, so there's something else going on. I'll try it again sometime. The pictures were crap anyway, so it's no loss.

Thanks!
*h

Quinten · Nov 9, 2005

timeUnit said:
Yep, this is TX, Tri-X 400. Have looked at the negs now, and sure, they are a bit overdeveloped, but not insanely so. I don't have a desitometer so I can't say what the values are.

The big problem: uneven development. There is more density on the "left" side of the negs than on the right. I guess the developer has "sunk" and there was more activity at the bottom of the tank.

bjorke,
is there absolutely nothing you do with the tank to ensure that the development is even from top to bottom?

See attachment for examples of unevenness.

MAYBE it's an idea to put more developer in the thank, when you put in just enough to drown the reel it might be to little for these high deluted developers. For development with little agitation I usually throw in half a litre for 35mm. But as I said this is just guessing.

timeUnit · Nov 9, 2005

I used 606 ml for one roll. Thats 106 ml more than needed. I think it's fogging, so my initial action will be to shorten the time.

Tri-X in rodinal, because I don't know better?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency