Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,919   Posts: 1,556,431   Online: 1184
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    St Louis
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    473

    Developing 1960's tri-x - looking for developing times compared to new tri-x

    First, I am not expecting much. Yes, I know: FOG!!!.


    OK, now that that is out of the way, I am using D76 and would like to get an idea as to how different the old tri-x times are compared to the new stuff.

    Kodak and the massive dev chart only list 320 as 120 format otherwise its 400 in 35, that is available. I will run a few tests shot in the same conditions at different speeds and try some basic times at first.

    Are the new times the same as the old version of this film?

    I have a 400 ft roll of:
    Eastman Tri-X
    Panchromatic Negative
    Safety Film - Type 5233
    Type II class N

    Military Exp date Sept 1961

    Emulsion 5233-722-43

    Index exposure 320


    Again, I am very aware that this will probably fail no matter what, cosmic rays, etc. I cant find any anti fog chemicals cheap enough at this point.

    I did some searchy searchy and the keywords bring up way too many things to sift through. Nothing really on Apug via the search for some reason.

    THANKS!
    "If its not broken, I can't afford it."

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,946
    The key is the designation Eastman rather than Kodak. This is how Kodak distinguishes their cine products from their still camera films. Eastman 5233 Tri-X film is cine film and not Kodak Tri-X for still camera use so any data you obtain for the still film will not be correct. So you're basically on your own. Do some tests to determine the correct development time and EI.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 01-30-2014 at 06:09 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    811
    A bit of nosing around the web reveals that 5233 is motion picture stock. I don't think you can assume that recommended development will be the same as for still-picture TX, whether current or of comparable vintage.

  4. #4
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,055
    Images
    33
    According to my PLI, D-76 9m@65f, 8m@68f, 7.5m@70f. This is for stock mix no dilution. These numbers are from 1976 photo lab index, and are only for a starting point, you will have to do your own tests.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    St Louis
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    473
    Ok, somehow I missed the Eastman vs Kodak aspect. Even more fun!
    "If its not broken, I can't afford it."

  6. #6
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,427
    Images
    46
    Be sure to "test" it at a very low speed such as EI 32 to 64. The way fog works ... it takes a lot of speed away. You lose contrast too, so "test" some longer development times.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    St Louis
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    473

    A test, offer suggestions, please.

    OK, I gave it a shot. Yes, a bit fogged, but not as bad as I thought, considering its 50+ years old.
    This is scanned a a transparency:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	trixtest1-003.jpg 
Views:	41 
Size:	69.7 KB 
ID:	81255
    Best I could get in these two.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	trixtest1-001.jpg 
Views:	56 
Size:	298.4 KB 
ID:	81256
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	trixtest1-002.jpg 
Views:	59 
Size:	301.9 KB 
ID:	81257

    Shot at 320.

    D76 stock, 9 min @ 67 degrees
    water stop
    5 min Fixer
    shortish rinse time, impatience...

    Its a bit sloppy and splotchy, but thats cause I was in a hurry.

    Question is, which way to go?

    Add more time? Dilute developer, shoot at 100 speed? I would like some sugestions that might offer improvement to prevent me from wasting time on the wrong approach, if that is possible.
    "If its not broken, I can't afford it."

  8. #8
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,427
    Images
    46
    You might be able to extract image to share from a negative scan off a flat neg... But you'd need Grade 5 paper to get a decent darkroom print... Hit it with more light. You might be OK with the development time.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,085
    cine film is normally low contrast for printing on positive so would need longer for paper printing.
    Id suggest either potassium bromide in D76 or other developer D76 tends to lift fog levels on fresh film more than other developers if you need to develop for longer.
    Cine films are nice for stills.

  10. #10
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,083
    The numbers were perforated into the "leader" area of the film, so you will not liley find more until you get to the end where it will say "exposed" it does confirm you have genuine 5233. i have never seen that one. B&W movie stock at one time was XT pan, Plus-X pan, double X Pan, and 4X pan. Of course the military gets what they want.
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin