Beginner question about Tri-x

A

Adam14

Established
Local time
6:18 PM
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
88
View My Gallery
I have been using XP2 ad BCN400 and have just shot a few rolls of Tri-X.
I was previously given some advice on shooting this film with different ASA's but I am confused. I would appreciate some advice in this area. If it is suggested that I shoot this film with say 200 does mean that I have to set 200 on the camera. Do I tell the lab to process it at 200 and not the box speed.
I have a scanner and do plan to do my own developing. It seems pretty intimidating but several have said "if I can do it,anyone can do it" so I am determined to soon try!

Also,I just got an M3 and while waiting for the meter I ordered I am going to experiment with Sunny 16. I assume that since the M3 does not have a 400 shutter speed selection,that I use the next closest,which would be 500...is this correct?

Thanks for your help,
Adam
 
If you plan on scanning it, then Tri-X is not the best film. The C-41 films scan better. However, I much prefer the look of traditional films.

Whether you shoot TriX at 400 or 200 is up to you. You can shoot at 200 and develop normally - one stop overexposure still gives a very usable negative. My advice, which may be as useless as any other advice, is to shoot it at 400 and develop normally but bias your readings slightly towards the shadows. In contrasty lighting, Sunny f16 can give you poor shadow detail.
 
I've found that in my region , this time of year Sunny F8 is more appropriate.
Tri-X is very forgiving, I like to have the bias on overexposure rather than under, having detail onthe negative is better than not having it. So you might set the meter (or alter your sunny rule) to 320 and develop normally
This photo was taken at ISO 400 and developed normally in TMAX developer. It scanned just fine IMHO:

U25736I1280289768.SEQ.0.jpg

 
Adam, push processing compensates for underexposed film with over-developing. Pull processing compensates for overexposure with underdeveloping. For example, shooting Tri-X 400 with the camera set at 200 results in overexposure (the camera "thinks" the film needs more light), so the film can be pulled in processing to try to reduce the damage. The person processing film will treat it at its rated ISO unless told it was pushed or pulled to a different ISO, so, yes, tell them.

People pull Tri-X because they like the results. You may, as well, but I'd recommend shooting it at 400 long enough to get a basis for comparison.

I process b&w at my kitchen sink, and it isn't difficult. (I live in the American south, so in the summer the biggest headache is getting the water temperature down.) For the first few efforts, have the steps written out so you don't forget something or get things out of order. Line the bottles up in order of use. Commit to memory or write down the parameters you use: How long you keep the film in the developer, the developer's temperature, how you agitated, etc. That will help you decide if and how you want to tweak your procedure for better results. For similar reasons, your own consistency is probably more important that trying to slavishly follow instructions to the second. That's not to say you should develop film for twice the manufacturer's recommendation, but if you run a few seconds long or short, it's better to always run a few seconds long or short. E.g., if you stop the development clock just before you pour it out, always do that. If you stop the development clock after you pour it out, always do that.
 
I love to see more people getting into film and doing their own processing. I suggest however that until you can actually process your own film, that you stick with the XP2 or 400CN. Having traditional BW processed at labs is expensive and often gives disappointing results.
With respect to ASA, a simple way to look at it is: rating a film at a lower ASA (and then less development) gives lower contrast. Rating the film at a higher ASA (and then more development) gives more contrast. But I would agree with the earlier posts that for your first rolls of TriX that you rate at the traditional box speed, especially if you are going to a lab for your processing.
 
Adam:

There are a number of questions bundled up in your post, so I will try to get at the easy ones.

In general, and for most purposes, conventional B&W film is sensitive enough to "notice" a change in exposure that is a factor of 2. So doubling the length of your exposure or cutting it in half will make a noticeable difference in your final product. This is the reason that modern lenses are marked the way they are. That is, each stop you open the lens lets in twice as much light as the one before it. And, more or less, each shutter speed notch is twice as fast as the one before it. Obviously, a half-stop or a third of a stop will make a difference too, but less of a difference than a a full stop. By the time you get to a fifth of a stop or a tenth of a stop, you are within the range of error for most mechanical shutters, such as the one in your M3. Most folks won't notice those changes and they are small enough to be "covered" by lack of precision in other steps in processing (e.g. development time, water temperature, freshness of film, freshness of chemicals, contaminants in the water . . . the list of potential small factors is endless and, in your case, not yet worth worrying about). Because of this, the difference between 1/400 of a second and 1/500 of a second is nowhere close enough to matter.

In terms of choosing a film speed, there are books written about this and other sensitometry questions, so I'll try not to lead you too far astray with my limited knowledge. Film "speed" for a traditional silver halide film like Tri-X is really a combination of marketing decisions, actual film sensitivity and consensus. And Kodak has tweaked the formula for the film many times over the years without being explicit about it. Every film has its own way of responding to light intensity and color in a particular developer. Taken together, these families of responses can be graphed as "characteristic curves." They are shaped like lazy, squashed S's; the "toe" or beginning of the curve is where the film begins to record detail (information in the shadows), the middle of the curve responds to mid-tones and the shoulder of the curve shows how the film retains information in the highlights. Your camera light meter is dumb, but talented. Its one purpose in life is to read the amount of light bouncing off a scene and tell you where the middle gray of that curve is likely to be. Your choice of "film speed" (that is, where you tell your camera to place middle grey) along with a bunch of other choices will determine how much shadow detail and how much highlight detail your film records for a given exposure.

For a long time there was a lot of magical thinking going on about overexposing and under-developing Tri-X to get a certain look.

My advice is to shoot a couple of rolls at the box speed and develop according to the manufacturer's recommendations in a well-known developer like Dektol or XTol, see how you like the results, and go from there. It's a little bit like cooking. You'll understand better what you are doing if you only change one variable at a time. Finally, the films that you have been using, so-called chromogenic films, are more like color films in their response to light than they are like a traditional film like Tri-X. And because someone else is doing the development, you have a lot less control over what choosing a different "film speed" on your camera's ISO meter means than with a traditional film. Give yourself enough time with Tri-X to see what it can really do. I have been using a lot of TCN400 lately, but a well-developed Tri-X negative is capable of great results.

Good Luck!


Ben Marks
 
Hi Adam,

You should develop your Tri-X... It's very easy.

With labs, you can never know what they do, no matter what they tell you they'll do...

About your question: when we meter a film at a lower ISO, we are giving it more light than usual, and the reason is giving more light to shadows on situations of high contrast... The answer is: when you expose Tri-X at 200 instead of 400 (because you're under direct sun) you should reduce development to reach your goal: reducing contrast. If you don't reduce development, all you'll do is giving more light and burning highlights...

But "developing for 400" or "developing for 200" doesn't exist: only you can make sure how your meter and how your cameras work... There's no way to know if the data a person at a lab uses for a given film "at 200" or "at 400" will be the appropriate development for your rolls... If your metering is not handheld incident but on camera, sometimes you could think you metered for 400 but maybe you were really metering for 200 because you weren't metering the real light but a few reflections...

I tell you all this because a photographer controls film in two related steps: exposure and development, and these two are one single thing, so if you don't develop your film, you'll never be sure about your results...

You can get usable negatives, but you'll find, as until now, you're not sure about why your results aren't reliable time after time...

If you develop your B&W film you'll have better results, more fun, and you'll spend less money.

If you definitely won't develop your film, you can have reliable results with a film that uses a standard development: right now you'd get great results with C-41 black and white: just meter it at 200 under direct sun, and at 400 in shadows or overcast scenes. 100% of your frames will be perfect and you'll have real B&W negatives. Even if you meter those films at 400 always or at 200 always, you'll be perfectly fine...

Traditional B&W shines when you develop it yourself and find your own times and ISOs.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
Adam, Tri X is the king of B&W film. As long as you do not develop yourself, either shoot the chromogenics ( expose at EI 200 and develop normally) or shoot Tri X exposed normally, or even slightly underexposed, as for scanning you do not want an overly dense negative. In full sun however, it would be better to shoot 1/250 f 16 in order to avoid black shadows.
For developing, I will distill in a couple of lines what I have come up to after a few years of experimenting:
you will need
- a changing bag (or a dark closet)
- one steel tank for 4 35mm reels with a rod on which you pile the reels
- 4 Hewes stainless 35mm reels
3 1 litre plastic measuring jars
a couple of liters of DD-X Ilford developer
a couple of liters of concentrated fixer of any major brand
a bottle of photo flo
a 1 liter bottle of denaturated alcohol
a 5 liter canister of demineralized water
a precision darkroom thermometer
2 100 cc plastic measuring cylinders
8 metal hanging film clips
2 cheap kitchen timers

Get some red and blue tape, and mark the 1 liter jugs at a level where the liquid will be sufficient to cover the reels in the tank ( for me it is 900cc), the red one for developer, blue one for fixer, you can mark the third jug with white tape - it will be used for the final rinse. Mark with red and blue the smaller cylinders too, so that you will know which is which and will avoid the risk of contamination.
I use DD-X 1+9, this way it is easier to control the time and it is also cheaper. This developer with Tri X gives full tonality and full speed, plus good sharpness, plus is easy to prepare, as it comes in a liquid form. In my opinion it is the best compromise overall.
I normally pour it into smaller bottles after opening. to avoid oxidation.

So, to prepare the development, first you have to load the film onto the reels and into the tank. I use a 4 reel tank, because in the end it is the best compromise between convenience, temperature stability and lazyness. You might also get a 2 reel tank if you need to develop less film quickly.

Yoy pour 90cc of DD-X onto the "red" jug, and you add DEMINERALIZED water to make 900cc, then you pour some concentrated fixer into the "blue" jug (according to instructions - for me it is about 116 cc) and add TAP water, to make 900cc again, then you pour some alcohol (100cc) in the "white" jug, you add a FEW drops of photo flo, and fill up with DEMINERALIZED water for the final rinse.
Then you pour water at 20deg C into a sink, plug it, and you immerse both jugs for half an hour, to let them stabilize the temperature. You set the timers for 9 minutes and 5 minutes respectively.
After the temperature is ok, you pour the developer into the tank (skew the tank slightly to avoid bubbles), tap it and start the timer, and invert up and down 4 times. As you invert, rotate the tank each time half a twist TOWARDS YOU.
Then hit the bottom of the tank against a hard surface 4 times to dislodge the bubbles, and leave it alone till you see 8 minutes 00 on the timer. You twist the tank 4 times again, and hit it again to dislodge the bubbles, you repeat this each minute till the end. When the timer beeps, you pour out the developer,and pour in the fixer.
Start the 5 minutes timer, and this time invert the tank for 30secs and let it rest for 30 secs each minute. During the last minute, open running water from the tap, and adjust the temperature, so that it is at 20 deg C ( plus or minus 2 deg).
When the 5 minute timer beeps, open the tank, pour out the fixer, and place it under running tap water, fill up agitating with the rod, and pour out 3 times in a row. Then place it under the tap again and start the 5 min timer again. When it beeps, pour out the water, pour in the liquid from the "white" jug, and agitate a few times.

Finally, you have to find a place to hang the negatives (shower is ideal). After you have hooked up the negs on the clips and hung them up, you use the liquid in the tank to rinse them over from both sides, and then you grab the clips at the bottom and pull them all to a side for a minute, to let the liquid slide down along the edges of film. Then you let it dry for a few hours without generating the dust, so it is best to close the doors and windows if any,
That's it.
 
You can consider using Diafine with Tri-X. It is a very easy beginners combo and will give good results. Once you have mastered this, you can try other films and other developers.

Diafine works differently than most 'normal' developers in that it uses two baths and is to a very great extent time and temperature independent. This makes it very easy.

In these situations I can never resist showing a picture of my first roll developed at home. Indeed, it is Tri-X developed in Diafine, rated at ISO1600. Except for cleaning up lots and lots of dust with Photoshop, it is straight scan.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lookupinwonder/3175855845/
 
mfogiel said:
...
For developing, I will distill in a couple of lines what I have come up to after a few years of experimenting:...
Click to expand...


Adam, a look at mfogiel's photos posted here is ample evidence this routine is worth trying. I may give it a try myself.

Some people don't use distilled or demineralized water because their tap water is good enough. That's the case for me, so it isn't worth the hassle to buy water. On the other hand, the temperature of my tap water only approaches 20C in the dead of winter, so I keep a few gallon jugs of water in the fridge and mix it with tap water. Film can also be developed at higher temperatures, by decreasing the time. (There is a popular rinsing technique that doesn't rely on a constant flow of tap water, which comes in handy when your tap water is in the 30C range. Google or search here for something like "Ilford rinse".)

What's most important when starting out is that you pick a routine and stick with it long enough to get consistent results. Once at that point, you can begin varying things, one at a time, to see if you like the results.

[EDIT: When you scan Tri-X or other traditional b&w films, be sure to turn off your software's infrared cleaning option. That seems to sometimes interpret clusters of silver halide as a scratch to be removed, something you don't want.)
 
Last edited:
Fearing a storm of controversy I too was going to forge ahead and recommend Diafine, which really does make it easier. If you find over time that the Diafine is giving you too much grain, which some people complain of, then try Divided D76 which works the same way and is available from Photographers Formulary. Regular D76 from Kodak is the most flexible and reliable developer around and the divided version from PF makes it as convenient and error-proof as Diafine is. In both cases follow the directions as certain steps and rinses are to be skipped with a divided developer.

With Diafine you are best shooting Tri-X at 1200 or 1250 -- so for daylihgt if you don't have a camera with a 1/4000 speed you might prefer a slower film. The two that work best with Diafine I think are Kodak Plus X, TriX's slower cousin; and Fuji Acros. The Diafine box will tell you what speed to shoot them at -- I think it's 200 or so.

Good luck.
 
And if it all sees too much, the magic formula is Diafine.

It & Tri-X are made for each other. Just search here on it for all the info you'll need.

William
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Developing Tri-X Suggestions?
Replies
13
Views
878
Muggins
Muggins
ChrisPlatt
Kodak Plus-X film, expired 20 years ago: worthwhile purchase?
Replies
14
Views
1K
ChrisPlatt
ChrisPlatt
ChrisPlatt
ISO 400 BW negative film recommendation?
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
T
A (possibly) unusual question about out-of-date film...
Replies
8
Views
713
Freakscene
Freakscene
Rikard
Forgot my Tri-X in Rodinal method
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Rikard
Rikard
Back
Top Bottom