Possible Stupid Question Alert

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Flotsam, May 30, 2005.

  1. Flotsam

    Flotsam Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    S.E. New Yor
    I was looking at the Massive Developing chart to find a time for developing 120 TriX 320 in Xtol. They give two complete sets of quite different times, One for Tri-X 320 [TXP] and one for Tri-X 320 [TXP/TXT]. Maybe I'm being a bit thick on this holiday weekend but what is the difference? :confused:
     
  2. Peter Rockstroh

    Peter Rockstroh Member

    Messages:
    159
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Location:
    Guatemala
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It has been some time since I´ve used Tri-X, but I remember two versions, the normal Tri-X and the Professional. They had a different exposure index and different development times.
     
  3. Paul Sorensen

    Paul Sorensen Member

    Messages:
    1,897
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2004
    Location:
    Saint Paul, MN
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    TX is the 400 speed which is available in 35mm and 120. TXP is the 320 version in 120/220 and TXT is the sheet film version of the 320 speed version. TXP/TXP are supposed to have the same times, and TX is different. As to why there are two listings in the massive dev chart for TXP, I have no idea.
     
  4. jjstafford

    jjstafford Inactive

    Messages:
    735
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Location:
    Minnesota Tr
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    they are two different films in many ways. it is an oddity that they have similar names.
     
  5. Flotsam

    Flotsam Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    S.E. New Yor
    And yet they give 120 and sheet film times for both [TXP] and [TXP/TXT]
     
  6. jjstafford

    jjstafford Inactive

    Messages:
    735
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Location:
    Minnesota Tr
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    the massive chart is not good; there are many uninformed, nonreviewed recomendations and crude extrapolations based on 'similar' films which are not similar.
     
  7. jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    20,228
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    local
    Shooter:
    Multi Format

    true ...
    but aren't these published times &C just a bunch of starting points
    ... i always take these things with a very large grain of salt
     
  8. fhovie

    fhovie Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,247
    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Port Hueneme
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    I am under the impression that TXP 320 "Professional" is tailored for studio use and is a lower contrast film. This would bear out with my experience in the field. If I use TXP on a scene that has 5 stops or less contrast - The neg will be so flat I will hardly be able to work with it. (I have not experimented with contrast expansion per se) I know that TXP in 120 at ASA 1600 is a wonderful film. The contrast is just right for the flat low light interior situations I am faced with from time to time. The grain when pushed in XTOL is wonderful. HP5 can also be used the same way but it doesn't have some of the apearant sharpness of the TXP. For contrast expansion - I stick to FP4+.
     
  9. Joe Symchyshyn

    Joe Symchyshyn Member

    Messages:
    468
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    As far as I knew... TXT was only code used for sheet film only. This was the OLD name. It's now been changed to TXP as well... (Sheet film is 320)

    Correct me if I'm wrong but...

    TX (35mm 400)

    TX (120 400) version 1
    TXP (120 320) version 2

    TXT/TXP (4x5, 8x10 320)
     
  10. Flotsam

    Flotsam Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    S.E. New Yor
    This is from the chart

    .......Film...............Developer....Dilution..ASA/ISO...120...Sheet....Temp

    Tri-X 320 [320TXP]....Xtol..........stock.....320........7.75.....6.........20C

    and further down in the list:
    Tri-X 320 [TXP/TXT]..Xtol.........stock.....320.........6.25.....6.5......20C

    There are similar descrepancies between [TXP] and [TXP/TXT] at other dilutions and EIs
     
  11. AndrewH

    AndrewH Member

    Messages:
    112
    Joined:
    May 27, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter:
    Large Format Pan
    I think I know this one.

    The difference is that the one is the older emulsion and the one is the newer emulsion (akin to TX 400 older versus 400TX newer). Your 320TXP is the newer emulsion and the TXP 320 is the older. Kodak moved their naming conventions to ASA/Name after moving theiir production a few years back. I believe anything with Name - Number is older and anything NumberName is newer.
     
  12. Lee L

    Lee L Member

    Messages:
    3,247
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I recall seeing similar variations on other films at the Massive Development Chart. I believe they post a variety of times/temps from a number of contributors, who, I assume, have a huge variation in techniques, temps, agitation, enlargers, lenses, cameras, light sources, meters, metering techniques, etc. I take their info, and most other info that doesn't fit my personal conditions and techniques, as a starting point, and not much more. I figure I'm lucky if I get to within +/- 25% of the correct development time with reference material of this nature, but that's almost always much better than starting from nothing.

    Lee
     
  13. Flotsam

    Flotsam Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    S.E. New Yor
    Anybody happen to have the Kodak time for TXP320 rollfilm in Xtol 1:1, 20C inversion?
     
  14. mikeb_z5

    mikeb_z5 Member

    Messages:
    217
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
  15. Flotsam

    Flotsam Member

    Messages:
    3,221
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    S.E. New Yor
    Thanks, Mike