What am I doing wrong? (tri=x and d-76)

[Sputty]

Hi,

I'm trying to get started doing my own developing, but so far have met with mostly disastrous results, and I'm starting to get a bit frustrated. I've attached a scan from the latest batch I processed. This is typical of all of the frames. The grain is ugly, the image is lacking in detail, the neg is splotchy, particularly along the edges, and the entire roll looks very thin, even though I'm pretty sure it was properly exposed.

It's tri-x, rated at 400, developed in D-76 at 21 degrees for 6:45 minutes. All chemicals were at the same temperature, the wash was lukewarm, and rinsed in Photo-flo before drying. Agitated for the first 30 seconds, and then 7 inversions at 30 second intervals. I think I may have over-agitated in the first 30 seconds.

I've got a fair bit of dust creeping in at some point in the process, as well, but that seems to me the least of my concerns at this point.

Can anybody with more experience help me figure out what I'm doing wrong?

Thanks for your help.

-Jonathon

 

[markinlondon]

I think you're over agitating. I tend to use Ilford's agitation routing with ID-11 (D76 clone) which is 10 sec agitation at the top of each minute. I don't get thn negatives but give 7.5 minutes for Tri-x in stock developer. This might explain your excessive grain.
"Splotchy" edges again suggest an agititation problem leading to uneven development, try agitating more gently. I usually get 4 or 5 inversions in ten seconds.

 

[kaiyen]

Your agitation does seem a bit vigorous, but I think you have a combination of issues here, at least one of which from my standpoint as an evaluator and troubleshooter is that the image you've supplied is not a good one for judgment. I'm presuming that's a snow-covered background. So you have a (light?) grey subject with a white background. That's a tough scene to meter, especially if you don't have good technique. Do you have a shot with more tones in it?

This is typical of all of the frames

Which implies _either_ consistent exposure or development issues. Just keep in mind it might be your camera - the meter, the way you are using the meter (spot vs. averaging, what type of averaging), a slow/inconsistent shutter, etc. Doesn't explain eerything, but just something to consider.

The grain is ugly, the image is lacking in detail, the neg is splotchy, particularly along the edges, and the entire roll looks very thin, even though I'm pretty sure it was properly exposed.

Ah, the plot thickens (even if your negative doesn't - sorry, couldn't resist). Ugly grain - are you sure it's abnormal? 400 speed film has a lot of grain compared to slower films (its not linear) and D76, while a great starter developer and at 1+1 you'll get a very useful compromise between grain and sharpness, is not a fine grain developer (though at 1+0 it is).

Lacking in detail - explain. Shadow detail? Highlight detail? It looks like the snow is just blah, so maybe that's what you mean? That _could_ be an exposure issue. You overexposed a bit too much, perhaps just 1/2 a stop.

The thinness of the negative troubles me. 6:45 at that slightly elevated temperature should be about right, presuming you are doing 1+1. I use ID-11 at 1+1 for 7:00 for N-1, which would yield a slightly thinner negative for a normal scene. So 6:45 for D76 1+1 is in the right ballpark. But you're saying it's thin. Are you noticing anything else about the negative? How is your base fog? The latest TXT isn't super clear as far as the base, but it's stilll pretty clear. Could the film be outdated? Exposed to too much heat? Etc?

Also, define splotchy, and "around the edges." Splotchy could mean water spots or poor fixing. I don't think you mean the former, and I have no idea if you mean the latter (though that's an obvious an easy solution). But maybe you mean something else. And edges - do you mean the edge of the film, or the image area?

Let's see if that's a good start. We'll figure it out. Or at least come up with...5 or so theories for ya 🙂.

allan

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Hi,

I'm not very familiar with D-76. I used it a couple of times but didn't like it.
I now use xtol. I expose the trix at 400 and use the recomended development time at 1+1 dilution. I do two inversions every 30s and start with a full minut conitous agitation. I love the negatives I get. Not too grainy, quit some exposure latitude. Most negatives print right away on grade 2.5.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[markinlondon]

The edges look light to me, Allan. Given that the light in the scene is very flat I'd still say uneven development from over agitation.

 

[willie_901]

From your post it sounds like you are trying hard to do everything correctly.

How did you make the D-76 stock solution? Is your fixer fresh? Is the film fresh?

This photo was taken in flat light conditions. Getting contrast is tough in this sort of light. I think your result has more to do with exposure than development.

How did you meter this shot? The snow in the background looks under exposed. Snow is tricky to meter because its reflectance is much greater the 13% gray and many light meters are calibrated for 13% gray. I think this shot is under exposed. The snow should be lighter. Grain can be a problem with under exposure. I agree with others that you may have over agitated. Agitate less and agitate gently. It is true that TriX/D76 has more grain than other combinations. At the same time this negative has excessive grain.

I assume the D-76 was a stock (not 1:1) solution based on the development time. I suggest you switch to 1:1 and develop for 9-10 minutes. Is the the edge un-evenness predominantly on the same side of the negatives? If so you may be under-filling the tank a bit. Of course overfilling is bad because then the agitation efficiency is reduced.

willie

 

[rich815]

I agree about maybe dropping the agitation to 5 times every minute, that's what I do anyway and it works for me.

I think what you have here is some under-exposure due to bright sky and snow combined with flat lighting giving you a lack of snap or pizazz. Nothing ruins interesting or good tonality than inadequate exposure and simply boring lighting.

Keep experimenting, watch your exposure with bright backgrounds (and compensate for it if you need to) and try to find more interesting lighting. B&W negs and their scans can look surprisingly flat, dull and grainy (more noticeable) if under-exposed and if the lighting is simply uninteresting.

Lastly, is the D-76 fresh?

 

[RayPA]

...

This photo was taken in flat light conditions. Getting contrast is tough in this sort of light. I think your result has more to do with exposure than development.

How did you meter this shot? The snow in the background looks under exposed. Snow is tricky to meter because its reflectance is much greater the 13% gray and many light meters are calibrated for 13% gray. I think this shot is under exposed. The snow should be lighter. Grain can be a problem with under exposure. I agree with others that you may have over agitated. Agitate less and agitate gently. It is true that TriX/D76 has more grain than other combinations. At the same time this negative has excessive grain.

...

willie

My first thought exactly. It looks like you metered the snow. Try metering using an incident meter in these situations or meter as you did and open up one or two stops. Tri-X and D-76 at 68F (20C) at 9-10 mins is pretty much a tried and proven combination. You can be fairly sloppy on time, temperature and agitation and still get really good results. Of course the tighter you can be the more consistent your results. However, the standard "routine" works with this combination very well.

🙂

 

[kaiyen]

The edges look light to me, Allan. Given that the light in the scene is very flat I'd still say uneven development from over agitation.

So no signs of increased fog, and the exposed area hasn't crept out of the frame? Good.

I'm, not sure you can get uneven development from over agitation, to be honest, unless you use a uniform action the entire time (ie - not breaking up flow). You can overagitate, where the symptoms would be increased contrast and possibly dark marks along the sprocket holes (surge marks are less common these days).

I think it's the scene, and exposure.

If you are using D76 stock I don't think you'd be getting much grain, though standards from person to person are different (reference the thread about 400 speed film and grain coming from a former 4x5 user). But do clarify what dilution you used.

allan

 

[tajart]

the image is a scan of the neg? printed to paper it will look different.
some recommend rating tri-x at 200 or even 320 and developing for 10% less time w d-76.
as mentioned by others, over agitation increases grain.

 

[Sputty]

Thanks for all the feedback. It sounds like over-agitation may have been the main culprit. By splotchy along the edges, I mean that almost every frame on the roll has white ghosting at the edges next to the sprocket holes. It runs the length of most of the roll.

Exposure may have been an issue, but I was metering off the back of my hand, not the snow. But the reading I was getting did seem a bit funny - I wonder if the cold was affecting the meter somehow. I've attached an indoor shot from the same batch. The tones do look better on this one, but the discoloration along the edges is more indicative. Would this be caused by too much agitation?

I'm going to try another roll tonight with gentler agitation as suggested in the many helpful replies here.

Thanks for all of your help on this.

Best,
Jonathon

 

[markinlondon]

When you say "white ghosting", does the film look clear? If not it needs more fixing or possibly more agitation during fixing. That could account for the light edges to your first frame. It often looks like it's "spreading out" from the sprocket holes.

 

[Sputty]

The film outside of the frames is consistent in tone, with no spreading from the sprocket holes, however it does look a bit darker than stuff I've had professionally developed, which makes me think it's been underdeveloped(?) But the ghosting, which shows up as black on the negs, does seem to relate in spacing to the sprocket holes. Is this a fixing issue, then?

 

[kaiyen]

Agitation increases grain, but I don't think to the extent that you're seeing. Perhaps it's a combination of over agitation and underexposure.

If you metered off your hand, did you then close down or open up based on your skin tone?

So by "splotchy" you meant those spots? That's weird. I have not seen those before from development, much less agitation. Looks almost like pinholes, but that would be the wrong way, negative>positive wise. Hm...

allan

 

[kaiyen]

Daniel,
My version of your response would not be that he's not agitating enough, but rather than he's not breaking up _flow_ enough. You can agitate like crazy, but if the pattern of agitation is too similar (just up down, just rotate, etc), you get a lot of movement but in a consistent flow pattern, which can lead to uneven development.

What I do is basically the one by A&T in the FDC. I rotate my top hand while inverting the tank. First away from me, then towards me. so I rotate and invert. I also do 10 seconds every minute, which is long enough to get adequate breakage of flow, whereas I sometimes had issues with 5 seconds every 30.

allan

 

[kmack]

Thanks for all the feedback. It sounds like over-agitation may have been the main culprit. By splotchy along the edges, I mean that almost every frame on the roll has white ghosting at the edges next to the sprocket holes. It runs the length of most of the roll.

Jonathon

If you are using plastic reels, you may have some kind of contamination on the reel (Photo-Flo?). It would cause one edge to be developed differently.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

In my short experience I've found that Kodak film needs a longer fixing time than others. I do get the white thingies along the edges when I don't fix long enough (and my fixing time is one minute over developing time).

Good luck the next time! 🙂

 

[kaiyen]

Photo-flo would cause foaming, though. That's a very distinct pattern.

allan

 

[Sputty]

Solares:

So you would fix for developing time + one minute? The instructions I've printed say 2-4 minutes for the fixer bath. I fixed for 3 minutes. Was this far too short? Should I be fixing for just under 8 minutes, then, if I'm developing for just under 7?

Thanks,
Jonathon

 

[kaiyen]

Jonathon,
Solares' suggestions aside (which I am sure are based on sound experimentation), the best way to figure out fix time would be to do a leader test.

1 - take the film leader that you clip off when loading a reel. This is fully exposed film, obviously

2 - toss is in some fixer. Swirl around and count how long it takes to clear completely. should be less than 30 seconds in completely fresh fix.

3 - Fix for double the clearing time OR 4 minutes, whichever is longer.

4 - Once your clearing time goes past 2 minutes (and that's looooong), then your fixer is exhausted and you need new fix.

So your 4 minutes is likely fine unless you were already using dead fixer.

allan