Developing Tri-X...

[Chuck Albertson]

I'd been using HC-110 on and off with really poor consistency (I think due to the short development times for dilution B).

I developed two rolls of box-speed Tri-X in Kodak's TMax developer, and with Kodak-recommended label times, really liked the result.

I just thought I'd throw that out there. By the way, the title TMax on the developer is only a Kodak name for current b&w products...it doesn't mean it's only good for TMax film. For a while, they were calling BW400CN Tmax also.

---David.

Visitng the Pike Place Market, eh? TMax is a fine developer for most films, but a bit expensive to use. Might also try mixing up 5 liters of Xtol, also provides very good results.

 

[rogerzilla]

I only ever used Paterson Aculux (maybe not available in the US) which is a fine-grain acutance developer. The results were absolutely perfect, with high apparent sharpness and clearly defined grain.

Now I've found my developing tank I might do some again - I have nowhere to set up a darkroom but at least I don't have to have all my films run through D-76 by a lab.

 

[Tom A]

i suspect that I have developed TriX in just about every 'soup" concocted for film, over the last 40-50 years. HC 110 works well, I use 1:60 (raw syrup) and it looks fine scanned - but a bit "rough" on print. Rodinal works well to, but again the grain gets a bit aggressive - sharpness is enhanced though.
The D76 1:1 10 min has been my standard for decades. It works well, a bit mushy grain (lots of sulphite in it) - but mid-tones are remarkably smooth. It also has a "slop" factor - you can screw up exposures quite a bit and still get decent negatives. In my mind the two were made for each other!
One of the more interesting developers for the medium speed films is Pyrocat HD. It gives very good edge effect without emphasizing them (Rodinal/HC 110 can give an almost digital "sharpened" effect). Great mid-tones and good shadow details.A bit tricky to use though.
At the moment I am doing a "Back To Basics" series on our flickr. Going back 30-40 years in negative files and pulling stuff done with the D76/TriX - as well as "shooting" fresh stuff with TriX/Arista. There has always been a debate about changes to TriX and how much it affects the negative. D76 levels the playing field - for all practical purposes, a 1960's-70's negative looks and prints pretty much the same as one shot yesterday!
One advantage of D76 is that you can mix it yourself and play around with the various components and tailor it to your own style. HC 110/Rodinal is quite fixed in its composition - unless you are really into chemistry!
So far I have done about 50 rolls this month with the TriX/Arista/D76 - I will do another 50 and then start playing with some of the variations (Vestal's, split D76, buffered D76 and some of the derivatives of D76 like D-89, D96. Should keep me busy until summer is here and I can load some EK 5231 (+X moviestoack, some Panf and other summer films).

 

[David_Manning]

Yep, the Pike Place Market 🙂

The problem I'm struggling with is that HC-110 B is strong, as has been pointed out. I've done it with different temperatures, and different times, trying to get a nice, repeatable result. That whole "4.5 to 6 minutes" really kills when it can affect development so much (by percentage). Most of my film in dilution B looks overdeveloped, and the grain starts to even look like it was pushed.

The TMax developer is really, really straightforward...1+4, 68F, 6 minutes. Voila...nice results.

I did not know I could re-use though, and discarded the developer. So, I'll have to rethink this. I don't make a working solution...I generally mix up 700ml worth. Am I safe to assume I can re-use that 700ml for 16+/- rolls? Chris, you seem to know TMax pretty well, what do you think?

Another from the same roll. I AM trying to figure out what caused the lines along the edge of the frame...they're not scratches.

 

[PatrickT]

David...if you're set with the Tmax developer that's fine. As others have pointed out (and I've tried myself), you can soup your trix in HC-110 dilution H (double dil B) for twice the time as dil B. This gets the times in the 9 minute range and reduces the percent error with the short dev times. I've tried it and it works fine.

I seem to be doing fairly well I think with Dilution B, but may switch over to H if I find that it helps. Not sure yet.

I'm also curious to know how many times I can re-use the developer. I made a 1 gallon batch of HC-110B and have been pouring my used developer back in it. Not sure if that's a good idea or not, seeing as I won't be able to really tell how many times its been used (since it gets mixed back in with the larger amount).

PS. I'm constantly in awe of the quality of your scans...I need to get that 7600i sooner than later 🙂

 

[David_Manning]

Thanks Patrick about the scans. These here are pretty dirty examples...the ones I clean up for hi-res really are nice.

I never re-used my HC-110...I just dumped it (I mean, disposed of it properly, ahem). But the TMax is way more dilute, so more expensive. If I can re-use it, I will.

When I run out of the TMax, I'll have to mix some dilution H to try. That still leaves the question of exactly how long to develop for. That range is the real question. Kodak says one thing, everyone else says a "range" for something else...hence, the consistency problem 🙂

 

[PatrickT]

Thanks Patrick about the scans. These here are pretty dirty examples...the ones I clean up for hi-res really are nice.

I never re-used my HC-110...I just dumped it (I mean, disposed of it properly, ahem). But the TMax is way more dilute, so more expensive. If I can re-use it, I will.

When I run out of the TMax, I'll have to mix some dilution H to try. That still leaves the question of exactly how long to develop for. That range is the real question. Kodak says one thing, everyone else says a "range" for something else...hence, the consistency problem 🙂

David, I know what you mean about the times. In my research, everyone has said to ignore the Kodak times. I just go with the time that the Massive Dev Chart app gives, which is 4:30 @ 68F. Dilution H would be 9:00 at the same temp. It's worked well for me so far!

I think a lot of what you're hearing with people's different times are after they have experimented and found a time that works for them (depending on their preferences, how they expose their photos, etc).

PS. I just bought a 7600i because of you 🙂

 

[Ljós]

HC-110: "One-shot"-developer!

HC-110: "One-shot"-developer!

I'm also curious to know how many times I can re-use the developer. I made a 1 gallon batch of HC-110B and have been pouring my used developer back in it. Not sure if that's a good idea or not, seeing as I won't be able to really tell how many times its been used (since it gets mixed back in with the larger amount).

PS. I'm constantly in awe of the quality of your scans...I need to get that 7600i sooner than later 🙂

Patrick, use HC-110 (regardless of dilution) strictly as one-shot-developer. (Just as you would with Rodinal.) There are ways of replenishing HC-110 (in fact Kodak sells/sold "Replenisher" that was meant for lab/dip-dunk-tank-replenishing etc).... but one of the points with HC-110 really is using it one-shot.
Even so it is a very economical developer, as a one liter bottle of it will develop more than 120 rolls of film (with Dil. B.)

Ah, and I agree with you: David's scans are great!


All the best, Ljós

 

[Wlodek]

Leica IIIg, 50/2.8 Elmar, TriX in Rodinal


1 by Laineferous, on Flickr

 

[Freakscene]

Am I safe to assume I can re-use that 700ml for 16+/- rolls?

700 mL of TMax 1+4 should safely develop 9 rolls of unpushed film [700/3800 x 48] but test to be sure. You'll also need to figure out where in that to increase your times, but rolls 1-3 normal, 4-6 +1 minute, 7-9 + 2 minutes.

Chris is likely to (wisely, I agree) tell you that you should use it one-shot, but if you can keep your variables stable - and in particular don't take whole rolls of high key images (e.g. snow scenes) you should be fine.

Marty

 

[David_Manning]

Thanks all. Patrick, congratulations on the scanner...now the fun begins.

Marty, I'm going to mix a 1.5L batch, so it's roughly double your math above. Just to be conservative, instead of going with 18 Tri-X rolls un-pushed.

So, maybe 1-6 normal, 7-12 +1 minute, 12-18 +2 minutes.

I'm hoping Chris chimes in here...he sounds like the resident TMax expert.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I did not know I could re-use though, and discarded the developer. So, I'll have to rethink this. I don't make a working solution...I generally mix up 700ml worth. Am I safe to assume I can re-use that 700ml for 16+/- rolls? Chris, you seem to know TMax pretty well, what do you think?

Another from the same roll. I AM trying to figure out what caused the lines along the edge of the frame...they're not scratches.

The stuff you see on the edges is either water-streaks from when the film dried, or uneven developing. Look at the film, if you see residue on the surface, its drying marks. Soak the film in photoflo for a few minutes and hang it up to dry again and they should go away. If its from uneven developing, the negs can't be fixed. 6 minutes is too short to get consistantly even developing, in my opinion, which is why I dilute Tmax Developer 1+7. Gives a more manageable 9 minute developing time at 68 degrees. You cannot reuse the 1+7 dilution though.

About the reusing 700ml of Tmax Developer, I don't know. On the first page, I gave Kodak's recommendations for reusing it, but they want you to have a gallon of it mixed, not 700ml. I have not tried it because I never reuse any chemical, ever. I would use Kodak's procedure if I were to do so.

 

[David_Manning]

Thanks Chris. As I look at the negs, the lines are drying streaks. I'll just re-wet with photoflo and do a better job of squeegee-ing.

I haven't been reusing developer anyway (fixer/stop, yes)...so I'm new to it. Since I have some doubt, I'll just be conservative.

Thanks again.

----David.

 

[Ljós]

Finding a good dilution for Photo-Flo

Finding a good dilution for Photo-Flo

"As I look at the negs, the lines are drying streaks. I'll just re-wet with photoflo and do a better job of squeegee-ing."

David, don't know whether you have already tried this: it could be worth while to experiment with the dilution of Photo-Flo. It should be possible to "dial in" the dilution with your workflow and water grade in such a manner that drying streaks do not (or only very rarely) occur. Recommended dilution is 1:200... for MY water (just as an example), 1:300 gives spotless negatives.

It is quite possible that you could thus skip the squeegee-ing and still get spotless negatives.

Anyway, the last picture you posted is a very good portrait in my book, well done!

Greetings, Ljós

 

[David_Manning]

Ljos, thanks for the info. I have really hard water here at home!

 

[David_Manning]

Chris, great tech info on your site. Thanks for posting that. I have an older Epson 2200 that WAS basically a paperweight...now I'll try the Quadtone RIP to see if I can breathe some life back into that badboy.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

David, use distilled water to make the photo flo. That will usually eliminate drying marks if you use the standard dilution that Ljós mentioned, but diluting a little more doesn't hurt at all. Not diluting enough cases sticky residue that is nastier than drying marks because it makes negs stick inside plastic storage sleeves! I use distilled water and I dilute about 1+300 too, like Ljós does and it works well. I also mix my developer with distilled water as I have seen hard water affect some developers. Fixer can be mixed with tap water.

 

[David_Manning]

Chris, I've been using distilled for developer, stop, and fixer...but not for rinse OR photoflo. Maybe that's part of my problem. I'll make up the photoflo with distilled.

---David.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Chris, great tech info on your site. Thanks for posting that. I have an older Epson 2200 that WAS basically a paperweight...now I'll try the Quadtone RIP to see if I can breathe some life back into that badboy.

Why was the 2200 a paperweight? Was it not working right, or did you just not like the quality of BW prints it gave? If it has sat too long unused, the print heads may be fatally clogged. My 2200 died that way because a few years ago I went for almost a year with almost no income so I couldn't afford to replace a couple of inks that had run dry. The printer sat for about 8 months unused and when I tried to use it again after I was able to get ink, the nozzles were s badly clogged that even the Epson authorized service center where I live could not unclog them. I had to toss it out and buy a newer printer. The repair shop said the printheads can be replaced but the cost is more than a new printer!

 

[David_Manning]

The b&w was really bad with weird toning and metamerism, but also when OS X went to snow leopard, it made my color profiles pretty useless. They've since updated, but I haven't printed much color, so I haven't messed with it.