Tri-X vs. T-Max

[Roger Cole]

Grain is not the main reason for using this developer. It's all about tonality. It's great with Delta 3200, for example, where with most developers you have to kick it far down the road and develop for a long time to build enough contrast to make a neg that fits the process.
Edwal 12 helps here by adding great intensity in the highlights, lessening the demand for really long dev times.

If you don't like the price of Edwal 12, Edwal 10 has almost identical tonality, but without the ultra fine grain. Recipe for it is easily found with a quick search.

The price is not prohibitive. I use T-Max RS for many films now and it's not exactly cheap. $20 for 2 liters isn't cheap, but it's do-able. I'm pretty satisfied with what I use now though.

I can see that, with D3200, IF you wanted to shoot it at slower speeds like 1000 or so, you'd want an extra-contrast developer.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The price is not prohibitive. I use T-Max RS for many films now and it's not exactly cheap. $20 for 2 liters isn't cheap, but it's do-able. I'm pretty satisfied with what I use now though.

I can see that, with D3200, IF you wanted to shoot it at slower speeds like 1000 or so, you'd want an extra-contrast developer.

Yes, really useful with D3200. Also fantastically useful with flat lighting, and with normal lighting you get these highlights, where I get them to hoover right on the brink of blocking up, but not quite. Those highlights prints so beautifully, and I love it for portraiture and some other things.

 

[nworth]

A related formula, Windisch 665, is quite sharp. It has been discussed here before and is really a quite remarkable developer. I have used the CD-2 variation and have been quite pleased with it with Tri-X. CD-2 is more active than OPD, and the speed gradation, sharpness, and grain are all excellent with this developer. Speed is nearly up to box speed (allow a third of a stop); grain and sharpness both appear to be a bit better than D-76.

Windisch W-665
Ultra-fine-grain film developer
Water (38C) 750 ml
Metol 15 g
Sodium sulfite (anh) 90 g
Sodium bisulfite 16 g (10g?)
o-Phenylene diamine 12 g
WTM 1 l

Variation (using CD-2):
Water 700 ml
Metol 8 g
CD-2 15 g
Sodium sulfite (anh) 65 g
Sodium metabisulfite 5.5 g
WTM 1 l
Mix in the order shown. This formula substitutes a roughly equi-molar amount of the more commonly available CD-2 for o-pheylenediamine. Grain is noticeable finer than with D-76. Gives full or nearly full film speed with Tri-X. Develop Tri-X about 20 minutes.

 

[DREW WILEY]

So Tom, could it be that you're getting visually similar results because you are using a dev which
acts like a silver solvent, of a class which is semi-compensating? That would certainly change
the steep toe of TMY, as well as soften the visible grain in TriX. Have you compared the same dev
with HP5+?

 

[markbarendt]

So Tom, could it be that you're getting visually similar results because you are using a dev which acts like a silver solvent, of a class which is semi-compensating? That would certainly change
the steep toe of TMY, as well as soften the visible grain in TriX. Have you compared the same dev
with HP5+?

According to Formulary's info it is a fine grain developer but specifically not a compensating developer. http://stores.photoformulary.com/images/store_version1/01-0210.pdf

What am I missing here?

I'm also wondering if/thinking that "12" might just naturally create a curve "of its own".

The other wild card I see for many shots is print placement. If detail from the toe areas, from either film, aren't included in the print (they are simply black), then toe shape simply doesn't matter.

I know that with Delta 400, which I have more experience with, incident metering at box speed reliably leaves me 1-2 stops of underexposure latitude before it starts affecting the print so the toe shape isn't normally a big consideration for me. (My experience with TMY and TX is less formally tested but seems very much the same.)

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I will try to explain. My approach is anything but scientific, but based on observation.

I print on Ilford MGIV fiber. Before that it was Fomabrom 112. Whether the film is Tri-X or TMY, I always keep my paper in mind. The print developer I use is replenished Ethol LPD, which is softer working than Ilford Multigrade or Dektol.
Because this combination of Ilford and LPD takes a pretty high contrast negative to make a print I like, my negatives are developed as such.

Using Tri-X I expose normal contrast at EI 250 to get shadows off the toe a little bit. This isn't necessary with TMY so it's exposed at box speed or 500.
To match tonality of Tri-X I agitate less with TMY, normally every 2.5 minutes, which bends a slight shoulder, and Tri-X is agitated every minute.
High and low contrast lighting is compensated for by altering developer, exposure, developing time, and agitation, in order to shape negatives that fit the paper well. I ALWAYS target the print. Everything else is an intermediary and serves the final print. The negative - well I just don't think it's a good idea to talk about it unless we also discuss the resulting prints. A good film, to me, is one that is flexible enough to alter into fitting the tonality of my paper and developer. Both TMY and TX does this with flying colors, as does FP4 and Delta 100, and a few others.

So, tonality of the two films have both been adjusted to fit the paper to make prints that are highly similar in tonality.

What about grain, then? Well, if you look closely enough of course you will see a difference between TX and TMY. I sometimes make comments to provoke, to steer away from conventional thought and stimulate new ideas.
As it happens, both Xtol and Edwal 12 are solvent developers. I also use them replenished, which means there are process by-products in the solution, which helps yielding higher sharpness, finer grain, and different tonality. I lose about 1/3 stop of speed, but that does not worry me in the least. Both developers give exceptionally fine grain, and make for, to my eyes, exceptional enlargements where it can be difficult to separate one film from the other, based on how they're treated.
Xtol is awesome for subject matter with intense highlights, or where light hits the subject directly. Edwal 12 is incredible when light is flat to normal.

I hope this makes sense. It took me a couple of years to put all the pieces together, and today I have stopped using TMax, because life is easier with just one film, and in 35mm there is a toss up between the slightly smoother tonal transition of TMY compared to a slightly more interesting texture that TX yields. I could go either way.

 

[Bill Burk]

I will try to explain. My approach is anything but scientific, but based on observation.

I am humbled by your method and observations, they seem quite scientific to me...

Instead of learning different possibilities by altering process, I always do the same thing...

 

[Roger Cole]

So you always shoot an entire roll under similar light?

I can vary development for subject easily with sheet film, and sometimes with medium format if I shoot at least most of a 120 roll. But 36 exposures of 35mm are apt to have all kinds of mixed subjects, lighting and exposure on them. I have to standardize on one developer, time and method for the entire roll.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

So you always shoot an entire roll under similar light?

I can vary development for subject easily with sheet film, and sometimes with medium format if I shoot at least most of a 120 roll. But 36 exposures of 35mm are apt to have all kinds of mixed subjects, lighting and exposure on them. I have to standardize on one developer, time and method for the entire roll.

I try to, yes. I only pick up my camera when something really touches me, and I go to town.

 

[Roger Cole]

I can't seem to do that. One of the (admittedly a smaller one, but still a reason) reasons I tend to shoot more and more medium format is that 36 exposures is just too darned many. I end up with a roll of film in the camera for weeks, sometimes months. 12 shots in my Yashicamat or 15 in my 645 are a lot more reasonable for me. YMMV of course. I do load shorter loads of bulk film.

 

[dynachrome]

Where grain is concerned, there was a time netween the last Tri-X reformulation and the introduction of TMY-2. I am not the only person who found that with certain developers Tri-X had finer grain than TMY. Things changed when TMY-2 appeared. It has finer grain than the current Tri-X. As far as tonality, contrast etc. are concerned, that's up to each user.

 

[markbarendt]

I can't seem to do that. One of the (admittedly a smaller one, but still a reason) reasons I tend to shoot more and more medium format is that 36 exposures is just too darned many. I end up with a roll of film in the camera for weeks, sometimes months. 12 shots in my Yashicamat or 15 in my 645 are a lot more reasonable for me. YMMV of course. I do load shorter loads of bulk film.

Yeah, I agree, long rolls suck.

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

For my money, the "newest" and current Tri-X and the "newest" and current TMY-2 are way closer to one another than the previous versions of each were. Looks to me like Tri-X has a bit more grain and a bit less shadow detail (toe falls off faster). The tendency of the previous TMY to blow highlights seems to be gone, as is the tendency to reproduce thin mid-tones.