Under Development, Tri-X
Has anyone had a problem with Tri-X acting underdeveloped, when normally exposed and developed? I just bought a fresh 100 ft 35mm bulk roll. My first roll was developed along with a factory packaged roll in D76 1:1 at my standard time (medium contrast) of 8 min, 15 sec at 68 deg (shot at ASA20). The film from the bulk roll requires a #4 filter to yield correct results, while the factory roll prints well with a #2 filter as usual.
I processed a test roll under various lighting conditions at !0 min 30 seconds and the results look good. I never process film this long unless the contrast is extremely low such as with fog in the scene. For comparison, most of my work is done with Tri-X 120. Times for brightly lit subjects are as low as 7 minutes. These usually print well with #1-1/2 to #2 filters. I agitate vigorously.
I am thinking that the bulk roll may be defective. Any thoughts?
i haven't had that problem BUT ... is your developer fresh ?
(was it short date ) maybe your local store had it stored above the heater
all winter long ..
you might contact the store where you bought the film
maybe there was a problem with the whole shipment ?
sorry for not being much help
actually, i yhink john may be onto something here. can you try a totally different develoerwith you bulk film?hc110 or mix your own?
Kodak is known for consistency. Did you shoot both with the same camera, lens, lighting conditions? Shutter problem, perhaps? Light meter battery going bad? Something along those lines...?
I would probably roll up a short roll with 10 frames on it, and then put a factory roll in and burn off a few frames on that too, using the same body, same lens, same meter, etc... Just to make sure, unless that's what you already did. Then develop them together again.
If the same problem persists, I would say you have defective film. Perhaps storage issue of where you bought it could be a factor too.
As Thomas says, Kodak is good on consistency. Since you did develop both rolls ("right along with. . .") I assume you mean in the same tank, not 2 tanks side by side. If so, then I would question the differences in lighting, subject, etc, and take Thomas' suggestion about another test - one factory and one bulk roll, tripod, identical conditions, etc.
The developing times using D-76 1+1 starts at 10minutes for tri-x. Try this first, Steven.
Probably not when shot at 200. That would not really solve anything, because it seems like the OP processed the two rolls together in the same tank, so whatever difference there is between the two rolls would be because of something other than the developer.
Originally Posted by snederhiser
Well this is stretching, but do the edge markings indicate it's Tri-X? Could it have been a mis-marked or mis-represented package?
(Conspiracy theories . . .) :whistling:
I saw a thread on the same subject some months ago, either here or on the LF Q&A. The poster found that his sheet Tri-X was underdeveloping by about a Zone (N-1 instead of Normal with his usual Normal development). At the time I ignored it and so did most everyone else.
Recently I had the same problem with Tri-X in 4x5; i.e., with my Normal times it seemed the negs were all just slightly more than N-1 developed. Grade 3 paper did the trick for me, but I went searching for that thread... The poster had done a bit of densitometry and I wanted to see what his results were and maybe contact him. Never could find the post.
I have increased my developing times for Tri-Xd 10-15% for all development schemes and things seem to be alright now, but I haven't had much of a chance to print the new negs. I should really re-calibrate (a job for this summer when I get back to the darkroom in the States).
The OP for this thread may have had a similar experience.
It can't both be normally developed and under developed. One or the other.
Originally Posted by Loren Sattler