kennylovrin
Well-known
Hey
So I'm really new to this and don't understand it in depth yet, but I've developed two rolls of Tri-X 400 now in Paterson FX-39. The developer sheet says 11 minutes @ 20C which I did to the first roll. That roll came out like the 120 film rolls I've developed with the FX-39 which was very dark negs.
So I thought I had overexposed because of the two cameras I used before one didn't have a meter and the other had a meter that didn't really work.
Anyway today I developed the second TRI-X roll which I shot with the M6 I just got. But I figured I'd use the Massive Dev app which said 8 minutes @ 20C instead of 11 minutes.
Now the negative is hanging to dry, but even now before scanning they look a lot more "normal" to me and not so overly dark.
So now my question is, why is this? Is Paterson giving out development times that really are 3 minutes off? Or is there something else I'm missing here? Of course I'm sure the M6 meter is more reliable and accurate, but it still feels like it is the development time that made the difference.
Any ideas?
Thanks a lot!
Kenny
So I'm really new to this and don't understand it in depth yet, but I've developed two rolls of Tri-X 400 now in Paterson FX-39. The developer sheet says 11 minutes @ 20C which I did to the first roll. That roll came out like the 120 film rolls I've developed with the FX-39 which was very dark negs.
So I thought I had overexposed because of the two cameras I used before one didn't have a meter and the other had a meter that didn't really work.
Anyway today I developed the second TRI-X roll which I shot with the M6 I just got. But I figured I'd use the Massive Dev app which said 8 minutes @ 20C instead of 11 minutes.
Now the negative is hanging to dry, but even now before scanning they look a lot more "normal" to me and not so overly dark.
So now my question is, why is this? Is Paterson giving out development times that really are 3 minutes off? Or is there something else I'm missing here? Of course I'm sure the M6 meter is more reliable and accurate, but it still feels like it is the development time that made the difference.
Any ideas?
Thanks a lot!
Kenny
kennylovrin
Well-known
I may have found the answer here: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?doc=paterson-alt
"The times and dilutions recommended by Paterson have been found by the author to be excessive for condenser enlargers and 35mm film."
"The times and dilutions recommended by Paterson have been found by the author to be excessive for condenser enlargers and 35mm film."