Kodak Tri-X 400 developing

[labas_rytas]

Ive recently developed some trix 400 film in Rodinal 1:50. I pushed it to 3200, i found out that the developing time should be 33minutes, so i kept turning the spindle all the time. It turned out overdeveloped. So i developed the other roll for the same amount of time but at less turns: the first 10 minutes i turned it all the time, the next 10 every 30 seconds and the remaining 13 minutes - 10 seconds every minute. It turned out underdeveloped, with practically no shadow detail at all. I've got a soviet type developing tank http://www.tpub.com/content/photography/14130/css/14130_217.htm, so maybe i just have to lessen the developing time, but keep turning the spindle all the time?

 

[pau3]

Hi. I think that if you want to obtain consistent results you should change
only one variable in the process. If you change time, you should keep all
the others the same - agitation, temperature, dilution -. In fact, it is a good
idea to do always the same agitation (just choose one), and change only
the time. Hope it helps,
Pau

 

[hiwatt]

OOOPS! 😛
The way I do it (and I've picked it up from someone on the forum) is quite far from your method:
....
rodinal 1+50 at 20 celsius
pour the liquid in the tank
agitate mildly for 5/10 seconds and hit the tank on the side (lightly) with something hard (just to let any eventual bubble surface).
close the tank
invert the tank ONCE EVERY 5 MINUTES (bottom up and back)
pour out the dev after 30/32 minutes
....

It's called semi-stand development because you want to agitate it as little as possible...

The results? I don't dislike them (see attachment)....but I still prefer EFKE 50 shot at 40 and souped in rodinal...

Ive recently developed some trix 400 film in Rodinal 1:50. I pushed it to 3200, i found out that the developing time should be 33minutes, so i kept turning the spindle all the time. It turned out overdeveloped. So i developed the other roll for the same amount of time but at less turns: the first 10 minutes i turned it all the time, the next 10 every 30 seconds and the remaining 13 minutes - 10 seconds every minute. It turned out underdeveloped, with practically no shadow detail at all. I've got a soviet type developing tank http://www.tpub.com/content/photography/14130/css/14130_217.htm, so maybe i just have to lessen the developing time, but keep turning the spindle all the time?

 

[labas_rytas]

Like i said its a different type of tank, everything will pour out if i turn it upside down🙂

 

[hiwatt]

Right.
I didn't know that.
I should have imagined, though....
....must be kinda difficult to turn upside-down a Soviet Tank 😀 😀 😀

Like i said its a different type of tank, everything will pour out if i turn it upside down🙂

 

[labas_rytas]

😀DD good one 🙂 so any other tips? 🙂

 

[derevaun]

If you're going for high contrast and palpable grain, you might try 1+25 at 24c for about half that time. Or, 1+100 with semi-stand will give pretty much the same results (low contrast and good shadow detail) with any film. I haven't tried it at 3200 though. With semi-stand, agitation directly increases highlight density, thus contrast.

 

[kaiyen]

Wait - the picture of the tank to which you linked has a lid. Are you not using the lid?

Why are you using continuous? If you are constantly agitating for 33 minutes or whatever then of course your film will be WAAAAY over developed. I think at EI 3200 my time for _reduced_ agitation is like 30 minutes.

What I would recommend is to go to a standard agitation method. Pour in dev, agitate for 60s, bang on something to dislodge bubbles. Then agitate for 10s every minute. That's it. Keep it consistent the whole time, every time. If you find that it's overdeveloped still, then reduce the dev time until you get it right.

As for shadow detail...what were you expecting? That's a 3 stop push.

allan

 

[kaiyen]

Oh - in case you can't tell, I don't recommend continuous agitation for roll film. You'll want whatever adjacency effect you can get.

allan

 

[labas_rytas]

Well im not sure its the exact tank that ive got, but you supposed to turn the reel, not invert it. As of shadow detail it was pretty good when i developed it the first time, though overdeveloped, but the range of tones was quite good. But now its non existent, shadows looks totally black, highlights absolutely white. I think you havent used tri-x, its very pushable, ive seen pics on 6400 with great highlights 😉

 

[labas_rytas]

Oh and if i agitate for 10s every minute, itll be even worse, i posted how i agitated the second time 🙂

 

[kaiyen]

Well im not sure its the exact tank that ive got, but you supposed to turn the reel, not invert it.

It's it got a lid, I'm pretty sure you can do both. Or is the lid just a wide gaping hole? The Paterson tanks come with a "swizzle stick" you put in the center to rotate, but you can still invert that.

As of shadow detail it was pretty good when i developed it the first time,

then you didn't expose at 3200. You metered incorrectly. Tri-X exposed at 3200 will lose a signficant amount of shadow detail. If you had "pretty good" detail at 3200t hen it's because you actually exposed it at a slower speed.

But now its non existent, shadows looks totally black, highlights absolutely white.

oddly, enough, the blown out highlights indicate overdevelopment. Again, control your process, be consistent. in this case, reduce time.

I think you havent used tri-x, its very pushable, ive seen pics on 6400 with great highlights 😉

I'm in a rough mood lately, and I see your smiley, but don't lecture me on how to use TXT or how it responds. Besides, I'm citing mostly facts about exposure and development and its effects on a film's response curve.

allan

 

[vincentbenoit]

Hiwatt,

The picture you posted doesn't look like Tri-X at 3200 in Rodinal 1+50... I've tried this very combination, with similar agitation as you describe, and I've never got close to this level of shadow detail. (Not that I ever expected to). Are you sure you did expose at 3200 iso? Just curious.

Vincent