Trying Tri-X for the first time.

david b · Feb 7, 2004

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.

Donald Miller · Feb 7, 2004

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.

Jorge Oliveira · Feb 7, 2004

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

Tom Duffy · Feb 7, 2004

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

ian_greant · Feb 7, 2004

1/2 rate the asa???? Tri-X isn't fun until at least a two stop push.. Three is better

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

david b · Feb 7, 2004

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.

steve simmons · Feb 8, 2004

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

Cheryl Jacobs · Feb 8, 2004

Why this combination. D-76 is high in sod sulfite and the results won't be as sharp as a higher acutence developer.

Ummm, because it's a classic combination, and for good reason! 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.

dr bob · Feb 8, 2004

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.

David R Munson · Feb 8, 2004

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.

david b · Feb 18, 2004

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.

djklmnop · Feb 19, 2004

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

a0667318 · Feb 19, 2004

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

david b · Feb 19, 2004

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.

jd callow · Feb 19, 2004

db1 said:
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.

Then it probably is fantastic...

djklmnop · Feb 19, 2004

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:

david b · Feb 19, 2004

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?

djklmnop · Feb 19, 2004

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

david b · Feb 19, 2004

I believe 6.5 @ 70 and 8 @ 68 are the same thing.

Check the time chart on digital truth.

jd callow · Feb 19, 2004

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.

djklmnop · Feb 19, 2004

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

david b · Feb 19, 2004

Andy,
are you talking about digital truth (massive dev chart) or unblinking eye ?

Trying Tri-X for the first time.

david b

Donald Miller

Jorge Oliveira

Tom Duffy

ian_greant

david b

steve simmons

Cheryl Jacobs

dr bob

David R Munson

david b

djklmnop

a0667318

david b

jd callow

Moderator

djklmnop

david b

djklmnop

david b

jd callow

Moderator

djklmnop

david b

Trying Tri-X for the first time.

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency