When Kodak moved everything to Building 38, Tri-X was reformulated and is now called 400TX. Kodak has both data sheets on their web site (Pub F9 and F4017) ...
Perhaps you are switching from one to the other? BTW, I have heard many folks (including me) dis-agree with the times given for 400TX in HC-110B.
I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville
I personally never had a problem with fresh tri X. Even my 1987 exp tri X still turns out - i didnt say how good, but they do turn out.
[ Insert meaningless camera listing here ]
I may get hammered for this but I don't use Tri-X anymore. Anyone who says it is consistent is talking about the past. I have had similar experiences to the OP. I don't talk about my bad experiences with Tri-X because everyone will jump on me saying I am the one with the problem even if it isn't so.
Getting hammered sounds kind of nice, actually.
Originally Posted by M. Lointain
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
Just a short post to clarify, since some have obviously misunderstood what I was trying to say:
Originally Posted by ic-racer
I use the Zone System. I calibrated the new Tri-X (320TX) with PMK when the film was first introduced and arrived at personal E.I.s and development schemes for N-4 through N+2.
Lately, negatives developed my "N" time, which was doing just fine, seem to be underdeveloped. I have increased my development times some (ad hoc) to compensate, but need to recalibrate. It does indeed seem at first glance that the latest batches of film I have used need more development than earlier ones of the same film (all 320TX).
So, to rephrase my question: Has anyone else arrived at a "Normal" development scheme some time ago and that worked just fine then found their recent Tri-X negatives to be underdeveloped according to what they calibrated for?
If so, this would support the OPs observations (and mine) and indicate a possible change in the way the film responds. It could be manufacturing inconsistency or, more likely, a reformulation that requires more development now.
I'm interested in hearing, since there are many other factors that could affect development. Maybe it is just that my last batch of PMK is not as active as what I used in the past (again, possible manufacturing inconsistency or mixing error or...)
There, I hope that's clear now.
Last edited by Doremus Scudder; 03-24-2012 at 05:33 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
"I may get hammered for this but I don't use Tri-X anymore. Anyone who says it is consistent is talking about the past"
That's what I experienced too. First with a box (=100 films) of TRI-X 135 where about 10% of the films were munched at the edge of the emulsion (that is near the perforations). No effects on the image itself but that was kind of confusing... This happened around 2009.
And now I currently have to deal with another box of TRI-X where the emulsion feels weird and rubbery.
Consequence? This makes the film hard to load into my M3, and let me tell after 5 or failed attempts at loading my camera with a snake-like film I start to get angry at Kodak.
This rubbery TRI-X problem never happened to me before...
Last edited by Pat Erson; 03-24-2012 at 12:01 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Last night I started printing some of the negatives. In a few days I will report back my conclusions after printing from both rolls.
Good news, both rolls print great with a #2 filter. The film from the bulk roll is noticeably thinner, about 1/2 stop on the enlarger lens, but prints with equal quality.
I need to run some test film through my all manual Nikon F2. The rolls in question are mostly autoflash bar "party" scenes taken with a Rollei Prego point and shoot camera that automatically sets the ASA from the DX code on the film canister. I have manipulated the DX codes to indicate ASA 200 to "overexpose" one stop. These were new film canisters recently purchased and doctored up with tape and sandpaper to change the DX. Perhaps my system is not working properly.
I will update the post later after testing with the manual camera.
I have not actually had that, but I do run off a process control strip when I suspect something is not right, then re-adjust development time accordingly.
Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder
Yeah, I'll run a contact neg of the step wedge when I get back to the States and to the darkroom this summer and compare it with my older ones. I was just interested if anyone else had experienced this and possibly quantified it more than I can for the time being.
As I mentioned, I read a thread some time back and the OP seemed to have done some testing. I wasn't able to find it by searching, however...