Unsharp Images : Tri-X and Ilfotec DDX

[Tom Cross]

Hi all, I have been doing some more practice rolls of 120 this weekend. I have continued to notice that images appear unsharp. The majority of this weekend's images were on Tri-X 400 plus a roll of FP4+, all developed in Ilfotec DD-X as per DigitalTruth information. FP4 seems noticeably sharper.

Some of the images can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b0fvjgebo99yo0r/AACisahDtCm9FDiFvDTA3N0Ka?dl=0

I think I can rule out user or camera error - I had some processed by AG Photolab recently and they were all very sharp, and also with a 400 film (Pro400H I think) here - https://www.dropbox.com/sh/t7ht1slh373qm1c/AACrlmOHw7L09fKOYKuXQ0R5a?dl=0

I also don't think it's down to exposure, I took a number of images from exposures based on ISO 50, 200 and 400 and all were just the same.

Could it be too much agitation? Ilford don't like Kodak? Having looked on the internet, all I could find was how much success people had had with Tri-X and Ilfotec DDX !

 

[Oscar Carlsson]

Did you scan all of the images yourself, or did AG Photolab scan the colour film? It looks like a scanner issue.

 

[Tom Cross]

Did you scan all of the images yourself, or did AG Photolab scan the colour film? It looks like a scanner issue.

Scanned myself - I will investigate the scanner. I haven't got a magnifier (yet) so I might try taking a photo of the negative with a macro lens.

 

[John Bragg]

It is a scanning issue. Even the dust on the negatives looks unsharp and that would not be the case otherwise.

 

[Tom Cross]

It is a scanning issue. Even the dust on the negatives looks unsharp and that would not be the case otherwise.

Thanks John. I will look into whether or not there is any adjustment in focus. The FP4 appears slightly sharper - could this be a physically thicker/thinner negative?

 

[Tom Cross]

Any recommendations on good loupes? Or are they pretty much the same...

 

[mnemosyne]

Apparent sharpness of scanned images is heavily dependent on individual scanner hardware as well as the scanner and editing software settings. Scans are normally not a reliable indicator of the actual sharpness of the underlying negative or positive. The appearance of shaprness of a given negative in the scan from a pro lab will naturally differ very much from the appearance in a scan from a consumer flatbed scanner. You could rescan the 400H negatives with your own gear to make this a fair comparison. Because of the Forum rules, we cannot discuss hybrid/digital workflows further here. You would have to do that over at DPUG. The analog solution would be to compare the negatives/positives in question with a good loupe or print them optically to determine any differences in sharpness.

 

[Tom Cross]

Apparent sharpness of scanned images is heavily dependent on individual scanner hardware as well as the scanner and editing software settings. Scans are normally not a reliable indicator of the actual sharpness of the underlying negative or positive. The appearance of of a given negative in the scan from a pro lab will naturally differ very much from the appearance in a scan from a consumer flatbed scanner. You could rescan the 400H negatives with your own gear to make this a fair comparison. Because of the Forum rules, we cannot discuss hybrid/digital workflows further here. You would have to do that over at DPUG. The analog solution would be to compare the negatives/positives in question with a good loupe or print them optically to determine any differences in sharpness.

Thanks all, my original question was regarding the development process but this has now become a scanning issue so we'll leave it here. I have ordered a 10X loupe and will make a little lightbox. Thanks again!

 

[brian steinberger]

I find tri-x in 120 particularly un-sharp in ID-11 1:1 (my normal developer). I would imagine in DD-x, a lower accutance developer designed for more film speed it would be even more un-sharp. I gave up on tri-x a few years ago not only because of the price but more importantly because the film isnt sharp enough for my work. I much prefer HP5, now that's a sharp film! Even FP4 as you mentioned is sharper. If you like Kodak try TMY-II. it's a nice sharp film too. This is not a scanner issue. It's simply the characteristics of the film.

 

[Tom Cross]

I'm not especially a Kodak fan, but I do have a lot of Tri-X so now I need to research what the best developer is for it. HP5, FP4 and the Delta 100/400 I find are all nicely sharp. I recently stand developed some Delta 400 in Rodinal and got perfectly acceptable results despite Rodinal being quite a grainey developer. I don't mind grain though, but you should still be able to see a sharp image through the grain. Oddly the sharpest Tri-X images I have had were when I pushed it to 3200 as an experiment.

 

[StoneNYC]

EDIT: WHOOPS, forgot that scanning is off limits, so go to http://DPUG.org for more scanning questions if you need further info, sorry about that folks, I forgot!

----------

Look into the company "betterscanning" they make special film holders for scanners with ANR Glass placed on top of the film to keep it flat and much more adjustable holders then most that come with standard scanning equipment.

Different film bases have different thicknesses but more importantly react to temperature differently, one film might bow or arch differently then another film meaning that the film plane is at a different level, so for example your FP4+ Might lineup perfectly on the film plane with the scanner lens, whereas the Tri-X might be forward or backward more because of film bowing, and so the distance between the lens and the film is different and it is out of focus just like using a camera.

You also have to consider that color film at 400 speed will probably still be sharper then Tri-X for various reasons.

Finally, although DD-X is an excellent developer which I use myself, in particular it does really well for shadow detail and bringing highlights down as to not blow them out, even if user error occurs in the exposure, however it is not a fine grain type developer, it is meant to be partnered with Tmax400 or Delta films, which are inherently more fine grained then Tri-X which mitigates any sharpness issues using this developer. This developer is also particularly good with HP5+ Which is similar in grain style to Tri-X, but when paired with either, it's benefit is not it's fine grained nature but rather its ability to push films very well, for example HP5+ shot and pushed for 3200 looks like this...

Keep in mind, this countertop is completely black, and of course this is inside, see how the shadows even in the darkest areas are not totally into the black and there aren't really any blonde highlights even on the completely white cruet.

HP5+ @ 3200 | DD-X

So I suspect you might be dealing with a scanner issue more than anything, of course even if the film is slightly less sharp, if your scanner is off, that will only accentuate any already obvious differences between a tighter grained film like FP4+ vs Tri-X and make it even more un-sharp.

PS, only change one factor at a time, don't try and change your developer while also changing your scanner film to lass height, etc, or it will be hard to identify the true culprit.

Good luck!

-----------

EDIT: WHOOPS, forgot that scanning is off limits, so go to http://DPUG.org for more scanning questions if you need further info, sorry about that folks, I forgot!

 

[brian steinberger]

Tom, try ID-11 or D-76 at the 1:2 or 1:3 dilutions. Ive had nice sharp results with tri-x in ID-11 1:2, however I find tonality suffers a bit. You could also try rodinal at 1:50. Those would be my two recommendations.