Trying Tri-X for the first time.

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by david b, Feb 7, 2004.

  1. david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,026
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Somehow in my short "photographic" lifetime, I have never shot Tri-x.

    So I just picked up a few rolls of the new medium format 400TX and plan on developing it in D76 1:1 for 9 3/4 minutes at 68, as per the box and kodak website.
    I also plan on shooting it at asa 400.

    Any advice?

    Thanks.
     
  2. Donald Miller

    Donald Miller Member

    Messages:
    6,239
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    My experience with TriX is the 320 ISO sheet film. My tests on that film indicated that it exposes at 160 (to arrive at a .10 density above FB+fog) and that for a scene of normal luminance I expose it for 6 min 15 seconds in HC 110 dil B. These are for negatives designed for enlarging.
     
  3. Jorge Oliveira

    Jorge Oliveira Member

    Messages:
    614
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Location:
    Brazil
    Shooter:
    35mm
    You have to look at manufacture's data as a good starting point.
    There are lots of variables, such as your lighmeter precision, your metering technique, your termometer, etc.

    So, I would start with standard times and exposute, and then look for:

    - Is shadow detail good? If not, increase exposure (dowrate your film speed for metering).
    - Is contrast OK? If lacking, increase development time.
    - Are higlights blown up? If so, reduce your development time.

    The above shall be done over a few rolls of film, with different scenes.

    Have fun,

    Jorge O
     
  4. Tom Duffy

    Tom Duffy Member

    Messages:
    963
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    New Jersey
    What Don and Jorge said. I would add, if it's your first roll, I would suggest you bracket a bit I normally rate tri-x at half the manufactuer's recommendation. there is a big difference in the tonal ranges of the printed pictures depending on if you are using tx400 or txp320. the tx400 give a long tonal range with good shadow detail and a very light gray instead of a brilliant white. txp gives a much stronger (bad word, i know) tonal range from deep black to brilliant white. with medium format, you can try both and see which you prefer.
    d76 at 1:1 is a great starting developer for either tri-x.
    Take care,
    Tom
     
  5. ian_greant

    ian_greant Member

    Messages:
    402
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Location:
    Calgary
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    1/2 rate the asa???? Tri-X isn't fun until at least a two stop push.. Three is better :wink:

    Who needs a flash? Not me!!

    All kidding aside if I could only use one film in my MF cameras it would be TXP 320.

    Ian
     
  6. OP
    OP
    david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,026
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I've just posted an image in the standard gallery from today. It's a bit flat but I don't do PS very well. I'll have it in the darkroom on monday to take a look.

    I shot it at 400, developed in D76 1:1 for 9.5 minutes.

    No on camera filters used.
     
  7. steve simmons

    steve simmons Inactive

    Messages:
    367
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2002
    So I just picked up a few rolls of the new medium format 400TX and plan on developing it in D76 1:1 for 9 3/4 minutes at 68, as per the box and kodak website.
    I also plan on shooting it at asa 400.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Why this combination. D-76 is high in sod sulfite and the results won't be as sharp as a higher acutence developer. Try one of the pyro based formulae such as PMK. I woulduse an EI of 200-250.If you are worried about grain try a finer grain film like FP4+

    steve simmons
    www.cameraarts.com
    www.viewcamera.com
     
  8. Cheryl Jacobs

    Cheryl Jacobs Member

    Messages:
    1,717
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Location:
    Denver, Colo
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Ummm, because it's a classic combination, and for good reason! :wink: I use Tri-X processed in ID-11 or D-76 1:1 almost exclusively these days. The sharpness is very good, but not harshly so (yes, for the kind of work I do, there is such a thing as too sharp). The grain is definitely present, but is soft and beautiful. It yields a wonderful glow when properly printed.

    Of course, the 'best' film/developer/paper combo is entirely dependant on how and what you shoot, and your personal preferences.
     
  9. dr bob

    dr bob Member

    Messages:
    871
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Annapolis, M
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    You probably won't have any "problems" using TX or TXP. I certainly go with the posters in that TX-400 is (was) my favorite, until Kodak chose to stop the 4x5 and 120 production.

    I have tried other films and keep coming back to Tri-X. It has something other films miss. The T-grain films have great linear gray scale reproduction but seem to miss something in the artistic vein. I can't explain it - I call it "heart".

    Truly, dr bob.
     
  10. David R Munson

    David R Munson Member

    Messages:
    425
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    TX is great stuff. I found that it worked best for me at EI 200 and EI 1600, developed for 6 and 16 minutes respectively in HC-110 Dilution B at 68º F. FWIW, though, pushing TX only seems to give me results I liked in 35mm. Never quite looked right pushing it in 120.
     
  11. OP
    OP
    david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,026
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Just wanted to let everyone know that I have been shooting TX400 with great success.
    I rate it at 200 and develope it in D76 1:1 for 8 minutes. Very nice.

    Thanks.
     
  12. djklmnop

    djklmnop Member

    Messages:
    230
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    You should not have to develop Tri-x for longer than 6.5 minutes.

    I've done densitometry testing on the film for D76, and have found that it is ISO 160 and 6.5 minutes in D76 70F 1:1

    Andy
     
  13. a0667318

    a0667318 Member

    Messages:
    5
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Location:
    Irving, TX.
    Morning, FWIW Tusday I tested tri-x in D76 1-1 and I got an EI 200 at 11 min. 68deg
    I used a densitometer to measure the results and got a "I told you so" from the photo professors at the college. Rating the film at 400 is for the stormy overcast days.

    mark
     
  14. OP
    OP
    david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,026
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    andy,
    is that with TX320 or TX400 ? And is that with the new version?
    My film looks fantastic. I guess I will test 6.5 minutes next time.
     
  15. jd callow

    jd callow Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    8,411
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Milan
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Then it probably is fantastic...
     
  16. djklmnop

    djklmnop Member

    Messages:
    230
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    My testing is for the TX 400. But my results are merely a starting point.

    I just find that 11 minutes is a wayyy long. Even at 7.5 minutes my highlights were blown out of proportion.

    I'm shooting at ISO 160 for Zone I though. So if you're shooting at a higher ISO, your development time is bound to increase. Your shadows may night be secure but your highlights will come out fine.

    Heres an image from Tri-X with effective speed 160, and developed in D-76 1:1 70F for 6.5 minutes:

    [​IMG]
     
  17. OP
    OP
    david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,026
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Nice photo. I noticed that you developed it in D76 for 6.5 minutes at 70 degrees.
    What would the time be at 68 degrees?
     
  18. djklmnop

    djklmnop Member

    Messages:
    230
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I honestly have not tested it at 68 degrees. In sunny San Diego, it's so darn hard to get the water temperature below 75 degrees, so I did everything at 70F. In fact, I've retested all my materials and am doing everything at 75F!!!

    Sorry I couldn't be of further assistance. =\

    Andy
     
  19. OP
    OP
    david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,026
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I believe 6.5 @ 70 and 8 @ 68 are the same thing.

    Check the time chart on digital truth.
     
  20. jd callow

    jd callow Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    8,411
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Milan
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm no expert but if you were to add 1/2 stop (160 + 40 ) you'd be at 9.5 min's if 8min works when rating @ 160.

    FWIW:
    I like triX in d76 or microdol -- I don't know what my times are, but I dilute 3parts h20 to 1part stock for both -- habit more than scientific -- I feel I get a smoother neg.
     
  21. djklmnop

    djklmnop Member

    Messages:
    230
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    The problem with digital truth is, these results are from people who have submitted what they've tried. I'd say about 9 out of the 10 results you see on that chart are from people who are just submitting numbers they used without even doing full density tests.

    Andy
     
  22. OP
    OP
    david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,026
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Andy,
    are you talking about digital truth (massive dev chart) or unblinking eye ?