Developing Tri-X with Ilfords DD-X & amount of inversion agitation???

[LeicaVirgin1]

Dear Sir-

I am most disapponted. I have been trying to get that known Tri-X contrast & unique grain structure. I was told to use either Kodaks XTOL, or ILFORDS DD-X. I chose the latter cause I hate dry powder chemicals.

Each time I finish I THINK I have good negs. by looking at them on my lightbox. However, when I scan them @ 4800 dpi @ 16 bit Greyscale with unsharp mask enabled on my EPSON V750PRO scanner; I am disappointed.
Most look flat & I generally shoot in cross light inside or outside.

I have even used the LEITZ GGr filter, & med. Yellow's on my taking lenses. I have even went to the stronger HELIOPAN Green filter, but to no avail.

I live in hot Southern California. I wait till evening to develop my negs. I even chill my chemicals once mixed to 20 Celsius in my spare fridge. I agitate/(inversion method), continuosly for the first 30 seconds & then 5 we onds every remaining 30 seconds. My development charts recommend 8 mins of development for a ISO rating of 400 with Tri-X.

I only recycle my Ilford Rapid fixer about 3 times; the same goes for my stop, & wetting agent. I archive wash/flush for 30mins.

I use a plastic dual/single reel tank system called an AP. It is Similiar to the Patterson system you & others use. I have even tried agitation with the provided stem so as to lift & spin the reels as well, again to no avail.

Any advise? Thank you in advance for reading my post.

Best,

LV1

 

[Rob-F]

Have you tried D-76 diluted 1:1? It is a good starting point for Tri-X. about 9 minutes at 68 degrees F. Agitation for first 30 seconds, and 5 seconds every 30 seconds works for me, for normal contrast. If the scene is very contrasty, then agitation at one minute intervals, and maybe reduce the time if need be.

You will get LOTS of advice on how to develop Tri-X before this is over!

Edit: It is a pain to mix 5 liters of XTOL. But mixing D-76 one quart at a time is easy enough.

 

[Rob-F]

Oh, almost forgot: to raise the contrast, try increasing the EI at which you shoot the film; then increase developing time. I would start with a small increase of 20% or so.

 

[mfogiel]

Well, to begin with, on the V750 you should easily get a decent tonal reproduction, but then you need to adjust the levels, curves and contrast to get the proper looking image. However you might have problems with the sharpness if the film is not flat and/or you have not shimmed the holder properly. (Look here http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_1.htm)
Finally, this scanner will never resolve the Tri-X grain, because simply it cannot resolve that much detail, so you would need to upgrade to a film scanner to be able to see this like here

 

[pschauss]

If you want to avoid powdered developers, try HC-110 dilution H (half of dilution B - 1:63). I develop for 11 minutes with the same agitation that you are using for DD-X. If you dilute HC-110 directly from the bottle without making an intermediate working solution the stuff in the bottle lasts indefinitely.

 

[Tom A]

Tri X can take more developing "abuse" than just about any film. I suspect that few films have been tried in so many concoctions over its 55 year life span!
The "standard" soup is the D76. I tend to use it at 1:1 for 10 min at 68F. Standard agitation (30 sec initial and then 8-10 sec/60sec). I suspect that I have done at least 10 000 rolls of it in that combination over the decades.
With Tri X you also need to shoot yourself "in" with the film. Your exposures might be different from anyone elses - so you need to fine-tune it for your style of shooting and your equipment.
I have also been using HC 110 straight from the bottle as a 1:60 dilution - same agitation for 11 min. Works well, kind of gritty grain - but then Tri X was never a really fine grain film anyway.
I suspect your main problem lies in the scanning. I use a dedicated filmscanner (Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED). It is set to monochrome, no ICE, 8 bit (whatever that is) and it works like a charm. You have a lot of control over the tones in the coolscan and then I run the negs through Lightroom 2 for fine-tuning. I am a bit new to this scanning/digital stuff so I like to keep it simple anyway. I find that you need to punch up the contrast slightly in scanning - particularly as I still shoot and develop for "wet" printing.
It is worthwhile to pick up a couple of 100 ft cans of TriX and shoot tests - try every permutation of developer/ speed rating/scanning etc until you get it to where it does what you want - and then just stick to that!

 

[Roger Hicks]

What EI are you using, and what development time?

True ISO of current Tri-X in DD-X is 650+ (it's changed a lot since it was introduced as sheet film only in about 1940) so developing for the recommended time for EI 400 is slightly underdeveloping. I like the dev time for 800 to give a neg that prints well with my (wet darkroom) equipment.

This is completely divorced from EI. Even though this is giving me a usable EI of 800, I set camera meters to 400 or even 320. Again, this gives me the 'meat' I like. Yes, there is a slight loss in sharpness (both increased exposure and increased development reduce sharpness). With spot meters, used properly (reading shadows, not grey cards) I'm happy with 500. Of course, if you're scanning, you may well be happier with decreases in both development time and exposure -- or you may not.

I've tried 10 seconds/minute, 5 seconds/30 seconds, and continuous (the last with the dev time reduced 10%). Predictably, 10 seconds/minute gives higher sharpness with test targets but in the real world there's very little in it, even with continuous agitation.

Actually, I say 'I' but most of the Tri-X I develop is for Frances; for myself, I develop HP5 Plus for the same time and in the same way, often in the same tank. I prefer the tonality of HP5 Plus, and she prefers Tri-X.

Hope this helps,

Cheers,

R.

 

[LeicaVirgin1]

Re: Developing Tanks...

Re: Developing Tanks...

Thank you all who have invested your time & knowledge into my post. Thank you Tom, as well! In addition, thank you mfogiel for the link.

I will now fiddle around and see what works best for my set-up

Best,

LV1

 

[Bob Michaels]

<snip>I have been trying to get that known Tri-X contrast & unique grain structure.<snip>Each time I finish I THINK I have good negs. by looking at them on my lightbox. However, when I scan them @ 4800 dpi @ 16 bit Greyscale with unsharp mask enabled on my EPSON V750PRO scanner; I am disappointed. Most look flat & I generally shoot in cross light inside or outside. <snip>

I believe you are looking for great files right out of the scanner. Ain't ever going to happen no matter what you do from my experience. You can get reasonable files direct from the scanner but that is about the best they are ever going to be. You best files come from flat scans that do not have either end of the histogram clipped, then are adjusted in an image editor (i.e. Photoshop)

So concentrate on how your files look after adjusting in your image editor and not what they look like right from the scanner. You will end up with better prints.

 

[LeicaVirgin1]

Response...

Response...

Thanks you guys. I will do as you both suggest.

Best,

LV1