Tri-X 400: How to flatten?

[Muggins]

I'm reaching the end of a brick of Tri-X 400 in 35mm, and I still haven't found a way of getting the blasted stuff to dry flat so that I can easily scan it. It air-dries in a warmish darkroom, but always dries with a bow across the width of the film, sometimes enough to make it almost unscannable whilst on a good day it just knackers my attempts to get images sharp. It helps not that the darkroom I use does not have a glass neg holder...

I've a large and weighty library, but several kilos of books doesn't seem to make the blindest bit of difference. Any other suggestions would be gratefully welcomed! Failing that, what do you use that will dry flat and be scannable?

Many thanks,

Adrian

 

[BLKRCAT]

mentioned many times. For me I just roll the film backwards in a plastic film container and let it sit for 20 minutes to a half hour. Works well for me.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

As it's drying, keep the humidity up and the emulsion won't shrink as drastically or quickly, leaving the film flatter.

Phil Forrest

 

[smk]

As it's drying, keep the humidity up and the emulsion won't shrink as drastically or quickly, leaving the film flatter.

Phil Forrest

That's exactly right, it makes a large difference in the curl if the humidity during drying is high. Of course it takes longer to dry but the benefit of a curl-less film is much appreciated.

 

[Black]

Just buy HP5+ instead.

That is all.

😀

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Just buy HP5+ instead.

That is all.

😀

Any brand roll film will curl if dried too quickly though.

Phil Forrest

 

[Moto-Uno]

This coming at it from a different angle. I have an Epson V600 scanner and I can say that the film holders aren't up to the task of keeping negs flat, however (as I've mentioned in other threads) I simply lie a thin plate of clear glass over them and they scan fine. On my scanner anyways the concerns about their 1mm placement above the scanners glass is bogus. At high dpi scans the detail is better than my 10x loupe can resolve. It's dirt cheap and works on all formats. Peter

 

[Black]

Any brand roll film will curl if dried too quickly though.

Phil Forrest

/suggest not using toaster to dry negs

 

[Phil_F_NM]

This coming at it from a different angle. I have an Epson V600 scanner and I can say that the film holders aren't up to the task of keeping negs flat, however (as I've mentioned in other threads) I simply lie a thin plate of clear glass over them and they scan fine. On my scanner anyways the concerns about their 1mm placement above the scanners glass is bogus. At high dpi scans the detail is better than my 10x loupe can resolve. It's dirt cheap and works on all formats. Peter

Do you get Newton ring artifacts on your scans?

Phil Forrest

 

[k__43]

Any brand roll film will curl if dried too quickly though.

Phil Forrest

Tri-X is definitely curling stronger than HP5+ .. let's say HP5+ almost not curling at all. not as flat as plastic base films but quite flat.
problem is i'm sick of HP5+ .. I shoot my remains of Neopan400 and plan to switch to Tri-X when I'm thru.

 

[_goodtimez]

One wipe between my fingers, then one last wipe of the glossy side using a windshield wiper, then I dry it by hanging it with a little weight at the bottom and when it is fully dry I leave the cut sheets overnight under a heavy book.
This way I get it real clean, no trace at all and flat forever.

 

[Muggins]

OK, confession time. I'd asked some friends, all experienced film users, who all said "We've never had a problem with it" or words to that effect, so I just went ahead and posted the question without looking further. I think I found the first reference to Tri-X curl within about 2 minutes of posting...

Good suggestions, though - especially Black's second one, now I know where I've been going wrong all those years (though it did give me a Capa-esque look). The film canister trick seems to work, now I just have eight and four fifths of a roll to do it to, and rescan... argh! Ah well, it's a sight less curly than the dreaded Efke (six rolls still to shoot...).

Thanks, everyone!

Adrian

 

[Moto-Uno]

Hi Phil, no trace of rings at all. The glass shop I go to charged me all of $5 to cut it.
And I've used the propeller film (EFKE 25) which is what I think originally drove me to
try this. Peter

 

[znapper]

Never touch the film-emulsion, especially when it's wet, EVER -PERIOD- why the hell risk it, what a silly advice.

Use to-three drops of pfoto-flo in the last wash, then, alternatively, you can use your arms and swing the emptied film-tank in a pendulum motion, making use of the centrifuge-effect this gives.
Empty tank and repeat a couple of times.

Experiment with the heat you are using to dry your film, most likely it is too hot, if you are drying it in a shower, run some hot-water first to humid up the room and lengthen the drying time a little. (keeps dust away as well).

Cut and put into sleeves, if they have a bulge, this normally straighten out over night under a little pressure.

 

[Moto-Uno]

Just rethinking "Phils"remark concerning Newtonian rings, now that most flatbed scanners use cool LED's there's basically no heat generated and no rings as a result. Peter

 

[presspass]

Contrary to popular opinion, Tri-X dries perfectly flat if done in a Jobo Mistral drier at high heat. Weighted clip on the bottom, turn the heat up, and go away for 15 minutes. Turn it off, let it cool, and sleeve the negs. No curl at all - they scan just fine in a Nikon and did so in a Minolta before that and a Polaroid before that - yes, I've been doing it that long and usually do six to 10 rolls a week.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Just rethinking "Phils"remark concerning Newtonian rings, now that most flatbed scanners use cool LED's there's basically no heat generated and no rings as a result. Peter

Newtons rings aren't due to heat, they are a reflection of light between two adjacent surfaces.
normally a spherical surface and an adjacent flat surface, or in the case of film curved film and the flat scan bed.

 

[Moto-Uno]

Thanks for the info "Photo Smith" , I've only experienced Newton rings when I used to sandwich my slides between thin glass plates. They weren't visible until the hot light from the old Kodak carousel got to them and then you could watch them do their dance on the screen. So then ,what your saying basically means there could in fact be no Newtonian rings with the method of placing a flat glass over the film on the flat scanner surface because the film is also flat ? Peter

 

[Photo_Smith]

Newtons rings occur when a flat surface (glass) comes into contact with a curved surface with a similar refractive index ( in this case film)
Back in the day they made AN slide mounts that were basically sandblasted glass (to break up the flat smoothness)
When you put your film in normal glass mounts the heat from the projector would cause the film to 'pop' increasing the curvature, causing the effect.

Newton originally demonstrated the effect by placing a convex (curved) lens on a sheet of flat glass.

 

[sevo]

Newtons rings occur when a flat surface (glass) comes into contact with a curved surface with a similar refractive index ( in this case film)

The refractive index of glass and film is not that close, but the only thing required regarding the refractive index is that each is different enough from the separating medium (air) that there is enough reflection in the gap - hence you can eliminate Newtons rings by fluid mounting with a medium (like white spirit or glycol) that is close enough in RI to (at least one of) glass and acetate to suppress the reflections (or rather, at least one of them).

Other factors are the planarity of the surfaces and a very small distance of only a few wavelengths between them - Newtons rings are a interference pattern between the light passing the gap and light double reflected between both surfaces. With (everyday) incoherent light, interference can only occur across a very short distance, hence the small gap. Anything that creates a gap sufficiently big relative to light wavelengths will prevent Newtons rings. And any surface with a irregular texture will scatter interference into invisible microscopic noise rather than regular macroscopic circles.