Pulling Tri-X 400

[JHP]

Hello there.

I am a bit of a darkroom newbie, so excuse me if this question is painful to answer.

I recently accidently shot an entire roll of Tri-X 400 at 100 instead of 400 as I usually do. (I have never pushed or pulled a film before).

I usually develop my trix400 at 6.30 minutes at 21'C in ilfotec LC-29.
If I were to pull my film at ISO100, how long should I be developing for? I assume I would change developing time to around half? 3 minutes?

Thanks for any help!

:bang:

 

[kiemchacsu]

As I heard from RFFF folks, 3mins seems to be too short to have an even development!

 

[Chris101]

I dunno - I've never used LC-29. If I were doing this, I'd develop it in HC110 dilution H for 8 or 9 minutes.

 

[bigeye]

Just dilute or use a semi-stand developer to kick out the soak time.

I use Kodak XTOL @ 1:2 dilution for 5'30" and get excellent results with Tri-X @ 100. (At full strength and 400, XTOL runs 7', all @ 20C.)

You'll need to get the equivalent time value for your developer, if it accepts heavy dilution.

- Charlie

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If the scenes were under bright direct sun, then you exposed it as it should be exposed to have rich shadows, and developing it for a bit less than your usual time, would make great negatives... Say 5 minutes.

If the light falling on your scenes was soft (overcast or in the shades), then because of the overexposure you should use a shorter time too (I'd use 5 minutes too), but if that's the case, you'll get negatives showing kind of low contrast: not a big problem either... You can make perfect brints both scanning and wet-printing... Tri-X has a real ISO of 250 IMO, so you just gave your film close to a stop more light it required, and that's close to perfect! Your shots are fine!

Cheers,

Juan

 

[JHP]

If the scenes were under bright direct sun, then you exposed it as it should be exposed to have rich shadows, and developing it for a bit less than your usual time, would make great negatives... Say 5 minutes.

If the light falling on your scenes was soft (overcast or in the shades), then because of the overexposure you should use a shorter time too (I'd use 5 minutes too), but if that's the case, you'll get negatives showing kind of low contrast: not a big problem either... You can make perfect brints both scanning and wet-printing... Tri-X has a real ISO of 250 IMO, so you just gave your film close to a stop more light it required, and that's close to perfect! Your shots are fine!

Cheers,

Juan

Thank you so much!

 

[Honus]

Joe - I'd recommend about a 20% reduction in time. That would put you right around the 5 minutes recommended by Juan. Post your results when you can - I'm always interested in seeing Tri-X pushed and pulled with alternative developers.

 

[BobYIL]

Nothing to worry! 😀 As recommended just reduce your developing time for 20% and you will end up with the longest gradation the Tri-X could handle. Who knows, you may prefer to shoot the Tri-X half a stop slower then, as I used to do since years.

 

[danielmk2]

I wonder whether you'll achieve a very good result of pulling Tri-X. As far as I can imagine the image will become a bit too flat when this kind of film is pulled to 100

 

[JHP]

We'll see! I will post results!

 

[Freakscene]

I don't know LC-29. The 1998 Xtol timesheet which you can find here has times for Tri-X at EI 100 in Xtol. The CI is about 0.52, slightly flatter than normal development, but well within the range that can make an excellent print (probably at grade 3 or 3.5) or scan (with appropriate tweaks).

There are times at The Massive Development Chart down to EI50, but again not for LC-29.

If you cut the time appropriately, you'll be fine.

Namibia 2009. Tri-X EI 100, Xtol 1+3.

Marty

 

[bigeye]

I wonder whether you'll achieve a very good result of pulling Tri-X. As far as I can imagine the image will become a bit too flat when this kind of film is pulled to 100

I've shown this before, but the highs are just holding and the shadows are all there. It's a bit flat, but the range is remarkable. Speedex 120 folder, very bright, mid-day (EV16). I'd try to cool it down in printing.

Also, the 1998 chart for Tri-x is really useful because it has greater dilutions for XTOL, but I believe Tri-x changed since (full strength and 1:1 dev times are a little different now).

.

 

[danielmk2]

I've shown this before, but the highs are just holding and the shadows are all there. It's a bit flat, but the range is remarkable. Speedex 120 folder, very bright, mid-day (EV16). I'd try to cool it down in printing.

Also, the 1998 chart for Tri-x is really useful because it has greater dilutions for XTOL, but I believe Tri-x changed since (full strength and 1:1 dev times are a little different now).

.

Nice details. Pulling does make it a bit flat, but perhaps we can still do some afterprocess to make the final image catch up with what we expected. However I always suffer from a very flat image under a bright day, a painful experience.

Tri-X and TMAX make me happy when I see the tones on 400 and higher. I even push Tri-X to 3200 at night. Quite pity that Kodak seems to reach its end 🙁

 

[bigeye]

This was from a front element, scale focus cooke triplet. 120 just has a lot more tonality. Most people love contrast; I love the smooth tonality you get with medium format+ and Tri-X/XTOL.

(Film dies with Kodak. I don't believe that will happen - there is too much lose.)

 

[danielmk2]

I like the very smooth tones. Trix/HP5/Tmax with D76 1+1 appear quite nice to me.

120 is awesome. Talking about 120, I'm using the shanghai GP3 after running out of Tmax, this Chinese B&W film is much better than my expected when developed by Rodinal, it's now occupying 1/3 of my freezer together with some 160NC, another 1/3 is the territory of Kodak 135 B&w films 🙂

This is a shot in the library of TU Delft in the Netherlands using a Hasselblad， GP3 with Rodinal 1+25

 

[bigeye]

Tri-X devs @ digitaltruth.com:

Ilford LC 29.

Ilford ID11

Kodak XTOL

Kodak D-76

Kodak HC100

.

 

[j.scooter]

I like the very smooth tones. Trix/HP5/Tmax with D76 1+1 appear quite nice to me.

120 is awesome. Talking about 120, I'm using the shanghai GP3 after running out of Tmax, this Chinese B&W film is much better than my expected when developed by Rodinal, it's now occupying 1/3 of my freezer together with some 160NC, another 1/3 is the territory of Kodak 135 B&w films 🙂

This is a shot in the library of TU Delft in the Netherlands using a Hasselblad， GP3 with Rodinal 1+25

Really nice shot!
Just a quick off topic question about Shanghai film, if you don't mind. How is it to work with? I recently tried a roll of fortepan 400 and by the time I was finished loading it and trying to scan it, my blood pressure was through the roof and I need a shot of scotch. In my short experience developing film, I have never seen a film so predisposed to curling and physically thin.:bang::bang:

 

[kode]

Really nice shot!
Just a quick off topic question about Shanghai film, if you don't mind. How is it to work with? I recently tried a roll of fortepan 400 and by the time I was finished loading it and trying to scan it, my blood pressure was through the roof and I need a shot of scotch. In my short experience developing film, I have never seen a film so predisposed to curling and physically thin.:bang::bang:

That is more or less my experience with Shanghai GP3 in 120. It curls. A lot. But it turns out surprisingly well image-wise, considering the cost.

I have 10 rolls of fortepan 200 in the freezer, I guess I'll have to find out if it curls more some day...

 

[Oltremare]

Hello there from a newbie

I'm not very happy with the low contrast results of the nominal rating and developing of TRI-X plus D76 1:1. So I want to try to pull the film a bit, and I understand I should also under develop .

On the contrary, the Massive Developing Chart is giving 10 min of developing time for D76 1:1 underrating the film back to 200, which is a longer time than the 6 min of the standard 400 rating.

What am I missing??

Thanks

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hello there from a newbie

I'm not very happy with the low contrast results of the nominal rating and developing of TRI-X plus D76 1:1. So I want to try to pull the film a bit, and I understand I should also under develop .

On the contrary, the Massive Developing Chart is giving 10 min of developing time for D76 1:1 underrating the film back to 200, which is a longer time than the 6 min of the standard 400 rating.

What am I missing??

Thanks

If you're getting low contrast, you DON'T want to cut development: less dev time = less contrast. More dev time will also give you more effective speed. Just increase your current time by 50%. If that's too contrasty, cut back slightly -- maybe to a 25% increase.

Cheers,

R.