Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,979   Posts: 1,523,725   Online: 1155
      
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Printing Tri-X

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    24
    Images
    1

    Printing Tri-X

    Just a quick question, to ensure I am not doing anything wrong:

    Printed the first Tri-X negs today, and to my suprise they needed print times around 20-27 secs... In comparisation, when i am printing TMax at the same enlarger settings i just need 10-15 secs to get it right. have i developed wrong?

    I guess it is they way it should be, it just seemed a bit odd...

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,670
    Do your TX negatives appear to be unusually dense as compared to the TMax ones? Were the apertures and magnifications the same? Not knowing anything about your darkroom methods makes it hard to offer any real help.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    24
    Images
    1
    Sorry. Aperture where the same, and magnifications as well... Regarding density, I cant tell if the Tri-X negs are denser than the TMax negs

  4. #4
    raucousimages's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Salt Lake
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    825
    If the prints look good, no problem. Different films will have some variation in density just like different subjects on the same film will require different times. Examine the highlight and shadow areas of the prints. If you have clean highlights and some detail in the shadows you have a printable neg. I know that is a simple way of putting it but don't worry if one neg is different from another.

    My 35mm negs usualy run from 15 to 60 sec.
    DIGITAL IS FOR THOSE AFRAID OF THE DARK.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,670
    Was the TX film overexposed, what exposure index did you use? Were the development time, dilution, and temperature correct for the developer you used? Is your thermometer correct? Did you over agitate the film during development?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    24
    Images
    1
    Exposed the film box-speed (ISO320), and developed as according to the data on the T-Max developer... Guess I'm just too "new" to film photograhpy and thereby a little anxious to get things right.

  7. #7
    Amund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oslo,Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    902
    Images
    68
    I seem to get box speed from TXP in T-Max, so that shouldn`t be a problem.
    If the whole roll was shot in bright sun as the photo you posted it will probably be dense but printable without a problem. I prefer printing times at about 20-30 seconds, easier to dodge and burn...
    Amund
    __________________________________________
    -Digital is nice but film is like having sex with light-

  8. #8
    Saganich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    447
    Images
    176
    The times you mentioned aren't different enough to cause concern. So, sounds like your OK.
    Chris
    Chris Saganich
    http://www.imagebrooklyn.com

  9. #9
    Jim Noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,817
    Blog Entries
    1
    Actually you are beter off with the slighly longer printing times as it allows more time to accurately burn and dodge. I don't like for students to use printing times shorter than about 20 seconds for this reason.
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just getting fixed![/FONT]

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, Western Suburbs
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,435
    Dear audungk,

    As I recall, an old T-Max review in Photo Techniques supported your observations. Something to the effect that the T-Max negatives were "thinner" (my word) than traditional films at the same level of detail.

    Neal Wydra



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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