I Learned My Lesson

[colyn]

The Massive Dev. Chart times are all off by about 30% (too short).

How so?

It's never failed me..

Aside from this, Arista Premium 400 being Tri-X, why do you want to develop it in Rodinal ?

It's an excellent developer..

Whatever dilution, Tri-X will never look good if processed in Rodinal even with the correct time.

It has always worked for me..

Huge grain, high contrast, blown highlights. So ?

I get grainy but not objectionable images when developing in D76 but never with Rodinal..

Since it's been marketed, Tri-X has always been at its best in D76 1+1 when exposed at 400. This is the recipe used by the most famous photographers of the late years of the XXth century. Why looking for something else ? Why, why, why ?

Are we then supposed to use whatever they used???

 

[Highway 61]

Are we then supposed to use whatever they used???

If they massively used D76 1+1 fr Tri-X @400, it wasn't for no reason. Rodinal was on the market already IIRC.

Now the web forums are overfilled with "I developed my Tri-X with this and that and I had problems, please help me !" ; curiously enough, all those threads regard other developers/dilutions/times but I never read anything resembling a serious complaint re. Tri-X developed in D76 1+1.

Strange enough uh ? 😀

 

[Photo_Smith]

I've seen many problems with Tri-x in D76, not everyone used D76 'back in the day' and although the combination is common and some like it D76 is not the only fruit and is not the best developer for Tri-x.

You'll struggle to get 400 ISO from 1:1 dilution, it'll be nearer 250-320. The standards have changed many times over the years the original 1.5 dLog E ASA rating used at the time of Tri-x introduction gives a speed of 200 ASA in stock solution slightly lower at 1:1.

Many famous and competent photographers used Tri-x in Rodinal 'in the day' think Bert Stern's famous last images of Marilyn Monroe they were developed in Rodinal as was most of Ralph Gibsons work, so to say 'massively' is hyperbole of the first order as is saying that Rodinal gives massive grain and burnt highlights.

 

[Highway 61]

OK guys, you all win.

Tri-X is better when developed in Rodinal.

😛

 

[Erik van Straten]

It is better to skip TriX. Tmax400 is a MUCH better film.

Erik.

 

[scorpius73]

It is better to skip TriX. Tmax400 is a MUCH better film.

Erik.

The insults continue! ha ha!

 

[Photo_Smith]

OK guys, you all win.

Tri-X is better when developed in Rodinal.

😛

😛 No film is better than any other, or any developer combination it's all personal choice.

Rodinal isn't always grainy with blown highlights as you suggested in fact used correctly you probably couldn't tell a negative was developed using it.
Have a look at Ilford Delta 3200 rated at EI6400 developed in your favourite whipping boy developer–Rodinal

Increadible eh? 😛

 

[Highway 61]

Increadible eh? 😛

Darn, extremely nice shot ! 🙂

Yes, increadible to see Tri-X @400 suddenly changed into Delta 3200 @6400 ! 😛

I had top notch results with Rodinal 1+50 on APX100 and Fomapan 100 (films designed to be processed in Rodinal). But every Tri-X negative exposed @400 and developed in Rodinal I could look at closely looked unpleasant to my eyes.

I hate Acros for instance, but I have to admit that it begins to look acceptable once developed in Rodinal.

This thread is about Tri-X @400 in Rodinal and not something else. 😎

I wonder how my D700 CF cards cood look after one hour in Rodinal 1+100 stand dev. soak ! 😛

 

[gsgary]

😛 No film is better than any other, or any developer combination it's all personal choice.

Rodinal isn't always grainy with blown highlights as you suggested in fact used correctly you probably couldn't tell a negative was developed using it.
Have a look at Ilford Delta 3200 rated at EI6400 developed in your favourite whipping boy developer–Rodinal

Increadible eh? 😛

Wonderful developement

 

[Highway 61]

Wonderful developement

Wonderful moustaches ! 😀