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:
    4,031
    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:
    6,242
    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:
    405
    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. david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,031
    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:
    368
    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 68ยบ F. FWIW, though, pushing TX only seems to give me results I liked in 35mm. Never quite looked right pushing it in 120.
     
  11. david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,031
    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. david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,031
    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

    Messages:
    8,005
    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. david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,031
    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. david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,031
    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

    Messages:
    8,005
    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. david b

    david b Member

    Messages:
    4,031
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Location:
    None of your
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Andy,
    are you talking about digital truth (massive dev chart) or unblinking eye ?