Tx 400 (tri-x) rated at 200 in d-76

[jensenhallstrom]

Hello, so i have seen threads on this and people give what times were good for them, but no temp info, dilution or anything whatever, its so funny, the massive dev chart gives a 25 sec difference between tri x rated at 200 and 400, the former time at 20 C being 9.5 and the latter being 9.75 at 20C i know there should be more of a time difference, can somebody help me with the experiences you have had pulling tri x to 200 or even as far as you could, maybe even at 50? Thanks.

 

[Tom1956]

Tri-X is properly rated for 400 in D-76, and that's all there is to it. But why would you want to do this anyway?

 

[jensenhallstrom]

Tri-X is properly rated for 400 in D-76, and that's all there is to it. But why would you want to do this anyway?

Because im an experimenterer. I might like the look, plus its good for contrasty sotuations i hear, theres alot more than just 400! So much more.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Jensen,

I'm no expert but generally speaking you'll want to reduce development by about 20% per stop pulled. There are a lot of threads on this issue, both here and on other forums. Do a search and you'll probably find more info to help you.

 

[Tom1956]

I guess this is another one of those things where my age seems to show. I've heard it all and seen it all with the experimenters and all that. Then a light bulb in my head goes on and I see clearly through all that. What I see is that the chemists and engineers at EK Company are second to none. I'm sure that their work is exhaustive., and they pin it at 400 in D-76. Like corn flakes and milk, they're made for each other. I take this as the definitive word.

 

[MattKing]

You are going to run into a lot of confusing information, because some people meter at 200 to ensure extra exposure in the shadows, while others meter at 200 in order to ensure highlight density with pulled development.

IMHO, it is better to approach the question in a different way:

1) Choose your development based on the contrast you want; and then
2) Choose your metering EI based on the development you have chosen, and whether you want to manipulate shadow or highlight density.

Rachelle's advice is good for pulling contrast.

 

[MattKing]

I guess this is another one of those things where my age seems to show. I've heard it all and seen it all with the experimenters and all that. Then a light bulb in my head goes on and I see clearly through all that. What I see is that the chemists and engineers at EK Company are second to none. I'm sure that their work is exhaustive., and they pin it at 400 in D-76. Like corn flakes and milk, they're made for each other. I take this as the definitive word.

Tom:

Kodak gives recommendations for Tri-X at EI 400, 800, 1600 and 3200.

And then, in their dataguides, gives recommendations for developing for lower contrast, average contrast, and higher contrast (ranging between 5.5 minutes and 11 minutes) for Tri-X and D-76.

Which of those various recommendations should the OP choose?

 

[TheToadMen]

Did you check the Kodak fact sheets for D76?
See:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.pdf
and
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/professional/products/films/bw/processChartLo.pdf
and
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

 

[Tom1956]

Not wanting to be a thread hog, I'll limit my posting to answering Matt and then stand by. To pull the speed and contrast, I would choose Microdol 1:3, and to push I'd say Acu1 or Acufine. These are legitimately well researched and quality products and they suit their purpose better than any home-grown idea.

 

[markbarendt]

Because im an experimenterer. I might like the look, plus its good for contrasty sotuations i hear, theres alot more than just 400! So much more.

So, Jensen, here's some time and temp info from the horses mouth, go experiment, make a few guesses and see what happens. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

I do have a question though. Are you printing with an enlarger?

If so, your prints will answer a lot of your questions as well as give you more and better questions.

If you're not printing via an enlarger, push&pull (plus&minus) development, are largely irrelevant.

 

[polyglot]

You are going to run into a lot of confusing information, because some people meter at 200 to ensure extra exposure in the shadows, while others meter at 200 in order to ensure highlight density with pulled development.

IMHO, it is better to approach the question in a different way:

1) Choose your development based on the contrast you want; and then
2) Choose your metering EI based on the development you have chosen, and whether you want to manipulate shadow or highlight density.

Read that post very carefully. You pick a film contrast based on the contrast in the scene and the contrast you want to achieve on paper. That tells you the development time. Once you have your development time, you will then achieve a particular film speed. The formal expression of this approach is BTZS, which you can read about in Phil Davis' book.

It's worth keeping in mind that a B&W negative is basically not going to suffer in any way whatsoever for a 1-stop over-exposure. So you can expose it anywhere from 200 to 400, process it normally (as if it was 400) and get good prints from it. So in the common case, NO reduction in development is actually necessary when shooting at a lower EI.

Usually people shoot at lower EIs because the contrast of the scene mandates a reduced development time. Say you have deep shadows and glinting highlights and want to maintain detail in both areas. Reducing development can help you get there (it has other side-effects but we'll ignore that) but the reduced development means that the film needs more exposure in order to not come out too thin and unprintable. For example, I sometimes shoot Pan-F (a contrasty ISO50 film) at about EI16 to EI25 because I like to reduce the contrast.

So I think you have the causality backwards in your head. Instead of thinking "I wish to shoot at 200, how long do I develop for?", the approach is usually "I need to reduce contrast this much, how much exposure do I need?"

The "I want this speed" approach is really only taken for pushing, e.g. because you don't have enough light / shutter speed / aperture to get the photo without pushing. Note that pushing to higher EIs doesn't magically increase the film speed, i.e. Tri-X "pushed to 1600" doesn't achieve ISO1600 sensitivity. What happens is that a mid-tone will still come out as a midtone, some shadow detail will be lost and highlight detail will become un-printably bright. So pushing generally works best in scenes of very narrow dynamic range.

 

[tkamiya]

Hi....

If you want to rate the Tri-X at 200, you can surely do it. Since that will result in twice as much over exposure than rating it at 400, most folks will reduce development time to get the density in more less normal/typical range. But this isn't required. You can develop it normally and end up with a dense negative. Sure, it'll take longer exposure time to PRINT but it will print fine, nevertheless. You get more detail in shadow. It's one thing to over expose, and it's quite another to reduce development time. They don't necessary have to happen in a pair.

I've pulled Tri-X to 200 many times. When I'm in very contrasty environment, I'd do it. I typically reduce development time by 20% using D-76. It makes some difference but not great big difference. It tends to print flatter which actually is an intended effect but it doesn't always suit my needs. I hear people talk about rating this film at EI 200 will do something magical to their image. It does NOT... You get more detail in shadow... which you can easily do by exposing more manually.

Once, I did this test. Take a film. Shoot normally in a controlled enviornment and a scene that includes 18% standard. Over expose by 50% and 100%. Under expose by 50% and 100%. Develop each normally, -20%, +20%. Print using the same contrast filter and time it so that 18% standard look identical in all prints. They printed very similarly. Nothing magical happened. Yes, there were differences but slight and difficult to tell.

I'm sorry my post is sort of random but that's my experience.

I had more fun with pushing film. I've done Tri-X to 1600 and had quite a phenomenal result. THAT was fun.

 

[clayne]

Aside from all the zone-system type stuff, 400TX@200 or 250 w/ D-76 1+1 is a pretty classic combo. Is 9:00-9:30 not working for you?

 

[jensenhallstrom]

I guess this is another one of those things where my age seems to show. I've heard it all and seen it all with the experimenters and all that. Then a light bulb in my head goes on and I see clearly through all that. What I see is that the chemists and engineers at EK Company are second to none. I'm sure that their work is exhaustive., and they pin it at 400 in D-76. Like corn flakes and milk, they're made for each other. I take this as the definitive word.

Well, im confident in my opinion that any processing info published by kodak or ilford or whoever should be used just as a guide, and not definitive info, they are in no way supposed to be limiting or restricting. The chemists and engineers at EK company are second to none to themselves, everyone works differently to create their own style through experimentation. whos to say theres only one way a perfect negative should look like?

 

[jensenhallstrom]

Not wanting to be a thread hog, I'll limit my posting to answering Matt and then stand by. To pull the speed and contrast, I would choose Microdol 1:3, and to push I'd say Acu1 or Acufine. These are legitimately well researched and quality products and they suit their purpose better than any home-grown idea.

i thought i have heard microdol has been discontinued? I use microphen to push regularly, would you know the difference between microphen and acufine?

 

[K-G]

i thought i have heard microdol has been discontinued? I use microphen to push regularly, would you know the difference between microphen and acufine?

Ilford Perceptol is almost the same as Kodak Microdol.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[jensenhallstrom]

Hi....

If you want to rate the Tri-X at 200, you can surely do it. Since that will result in twice as much over exposure than rating it at 400, most folks will reduce development time to get the density in more less normal/typical range. But this isn't required. You can develop it normally and end up with a dense negative. Sure, it'll take longer exposure time to PRINT but it will print fine, nevertheless. You get more detail in shadow. It's one thing to over expose, and it's quite another to reduce development time. They don't necessary have to happen in a pair.

I've pulled Tri-X to 200 many times. When I'm in very contrasty environment, I'd do it. I typically reduce development time by 20% using D-76. It makes some difference but not great big difference. It tends to print flatter which actually is an intended effect but it doesn't always suit my needs. I hear people talk about rating this film at EI 200 will do something magical to their image. It does NOT... You get more detail in shadow... which you can easily do by exposing more manually.

Once, I did this test. Take a film. Shoot normally in a controlled enviornment and a scene that includes 18% standard. Over expose by 50% and 100%. Under expose by 50% and 100%. Develop each normally, -20%, +20%. Print using the same contrast filter and time it so that 18% standard look identical in all prints. They printed very similarly. Nothing magical happened. Yes, there were differences but slight and difficult to tell.

I'm sorry my post is sort of random but that's my experience.

I had more fun with pushing film. I've done Tri-X to 1600 and had quite a phenomenal result. THAT was fun.

That made really good sense! I actually took a roll i shot at 200 and developed at 68F d-76 1:1 at 9min and i think it came out quite nice. Its relatively low contrast but none the less it looks nice. Thanks for your input!

 

[jensenhallstrom]

I know that kodak has in a data chart that you can expose at either 400 or 800 and develop for 400. So if most people would lean towards overexposing one stop and not compensating time or anything, then, wow! How awesome it sounds to be able to expose one shot at 200 and the next 800 or 400, im a little skeptical though.

 

[darkosaric]

How awesome it sounds to be able to expose one shot at 200 and the next 800 or 400.

I don't use lighmeter with my M3, and most of the frames on one iso 400 film are mix of over/under exposed 1-2 stops from 400. They all print in darkroom ok - with little additional work. Only thing is that I must use test strip for every frame. When film is evenly exposed - one test strip can give approximate paper exposure time for all frames.

 

[markbarendt]

How awesome it sounds to be able to expose one shot at 200 and the next 800 or 400, im a little skeptical though.

I use this technique with all my films. I use one normal developing regime for each film for 99% or more of my work.

 

[darkosaric]

One more thing: if you are using some toy camera like holga or similar that has only one shutter speed - then for sure you will have under/over exposed frames. My formula for this is same for all films: Rodinal 1+100 semistand for one hour.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Rating Tri-X at an EI of 200 is within the latitude of the film. Develop normally, the negatives will be a bit denser but have good shadow detail. Too many people do not take the latitude of film into consideration and make unnecessary changes to development with its associated changes in contrast. Usual latitude is 3 stops over to 1 stop under exposure.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There's something else to be had than 'text book' examples of a perfect negative. By giving a film like Tri-X more exposure, the tonality of the film will not change much if developed normally, but the texture will. Grain will be more prominent with dense negatives, and that looks interesting to some of us.

Try using Tri-X at 50 or 100 some time, see what happens. Print the negatives. You might find something you like.
Photograph a static scene, and bracket at 50, 100, and 200. Cut the roll in thirds and develop one third at a time, using different developing times. Always print the negs individually.

 

[AlanC]

It is many years since I read Ansel Adam's book "The Negative" and I don't have a copy at hand to check, but I seem to remember that AA said something like this...
1. In a high -contrast situation, i.e. a sunny day, there is a danger that highlights in the negative will become too dense with normal development.
2. To bring these highlights down in density, so they are easier to print, development time must be reduced.
3. But this will also bring mid-tone densities down somewhat, and they will print too dark.
4. To counteract this, give the film more exposure. This will put the mid-tones back up to where you want them.
5. Some people call this "overexposing" and "under-developing" but it isn't. It is simply giving the appropriate exposure and development to produce a negative that will deliver the best print.
6. The apropriate amount of extra exposure and reduced development is determined by Zone system tests.

Apologies to Ansel If I've got this wrong!

My personal take on this is as follows. When using 35mm TriX on a sunny day I expose at 200. This is because my personal film speed for TriX is 400. (if it was , say, 320 then I would expose at 160. I develop the film in D76 at 1+2 for 14 minutes. This gives me negatives with a nicely controlled contrast range that print with a grade 2, 2.5 or 3 filter in my Leitz Valoy11 enlarger. This simple procedure works like a dream. There is no mid-tone compression. Tonality looks great. And the negatives have enough shadow detail to allow me to get it to appear in the print, should I want it. The negatives are easy to print, and at a size of 9 or 10 inches across are sharp and have very little grain.

Alan

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Rating Tri-X at an EI of 200 is within the latitude of the film. Develop normally, the negatives will be a bit denser but have good shadow detail. Too many people do not take the latitude of film into consideration and make unnecessary changes to development with its associated changes in contrast. Usual latitude is 3 stops over to 1 stop under exposure.

This advice is right on. Tri-X was originally rated at 200 when marketed in the fifties. You get better shadow detain without blowing out highlights when developed in D-76 1:1 at the ISO 400 development time. Tweak agitation to get minor adjustments for your enlarger and paper.

In flat winter light shoot at 400 and develop 10 - 20% longer.