Tri-X 400TX Equivalents

[julescasablancas]

Hello! Can anyone tell me the agitation scheme of tx400 with hc-110 (dilution b or e) ?
I've been developing with this combo for couple of years now but i often get inconsistent results 🙁

 

[Bingley]

For Tri-X (or Arista Premium 400), my go-to developer is usually HC 110 dil. h, 30 secs initial agitation, and then three inversions every three minutes. I get the nicest tones when I shoot at 250.

However, Tri-X is one of the few films (the late lamented Plus-X is the other) where I've gotten nice tones developing in Diafine. I rate Tri-X at 800 when using this developer. Here's an Arista Premium 400 sample, shot with a green filter and developed in Diafine:


Morning walk by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[L Collins]

HP5 is an wonderful alternative to TX. Better tonal gradations; pushes very nicely to 1600 iso in XTOL. You still get the grainy, gritty feel of TX but more greys and less blown out highlights.

Oh, and BTW, Arista Premium IS TX.

 

[julescasablancas]

Thanks for the inputs 🙂 im gonna give dilution h a go. I will also try to shoot below the box speed.
I like hc-110 because it is just so convenient. And i cant find any other developer besides ilfosol and d76

I have developed hp5 in hc-110 before. It gives a 'black' that i like.

 

[maddoc]

HC-110 (in dil. B) is my preferred developer for Tri-X (and XX, HP5plus etc. ...). I always measure the temperature of the developer (after dilution) and dial that value into the Iphone app "Massive Dev", works like charm. Initial agitation is for 20s (starting of the timer immediately after the complete solution went into the tank) and then three inversions every 60 seconds.

 

[f/14]

Some years ago I ran a (somewhat) systematic test series of Tri-X with different developers. D-76, Rodinal and XTOL.
I started using Tri-X and D-76 in 1963. Loved the tonality, but quite often wished for more sharpness. The perceived sharpness of Rodinal but without the sandpaper-like grains of Rodinal, even when diluted.
Seems that XTOL gives smaller grain clusters than D-76 and thus the extra sharpness while preserving the tonality. Ended up using 1+1 dilution.

Had to standardize tank agitation to get consistent results.
Once you find a favorite agitation pattern you should stick to it.
Ended up with the "textbook standard" of 30 seconds slow agitation from the start and then 10 seconds of slow turns every minute.

The other objective was to test the emulsion speed of Tri-X using a densitometer.
If you only observe mid gray, the 400 ISO box speed may seem correct.
Found though (like may others have before me) that if you want rich detail in the lower grey tones, exposing for 160 ISO gave the best results. This gives quite heavy highlights and you may wish to reduce the development time to make the film easier to print.
Textbook recommendation is 20%. To me that gave prints that were a little "dull and flat". Ended up with 320 ISO and a 10% cut as a compromise between shadow detail and preserving the nice original Tri-X tonality.

You may push the Tri-X to 800 or 1600, but it seems always to be at the expense of shadow detail. Lower and deep dark grays are not there anymore, just the blank film base with no information in it. That may well be an artistic choice, but one should be aware of the trade-offs.

As so often in life this information was readily available beforehand in textbooks, but one often needs to try it out for one self to believe the author 🙂 🙂

 

[David Hughes]

I'll bet you say "asa" too. 😉

HI,

That's uncanny, how did you know?

Regards, David ;-)

 

[ZeissFan]

If you like Tri-X and want results like Tri-X, buy more Tri-X.

I'm with Chris Crawford on film developing. I use the traditional methods of film agitation, because I get consistent results. I want consistency for my negatives.

 

[julescasablancas]

Thanks Gabor, f1.4 and Mike for the inputs 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Some years ago I ran a (somewhat) systematic test series of Tri-X with different developers. D-76, Rodinal and XTOL.
I started using Tri-X and D-76 in 1963. Loved the tonality, but quite often wished for more sharpness. The perceived sharpness of Rodinal but without the sandpaper-like grains of Rodinal, even when diluted.
Seems that XTOL gives smaller grain clusters than D-76 and thus the extra sharpness while preserving the tonality. Ended up using 1+1 dilution.

Had to standardize tank agitation to get consistent results.
Once you find a favorite agitation pattern you should stick to it.
Ended up with the "textbook standard" of 30 seconds slow agitation from the start and then 10 seconds of slow turns every minute.

The other objective was to test the emulsion speed of Tri-X using a densitometer.
If you only observe mid gray, the 400 ISO box speed may seem correct.
Found though (like may others have before me) that if you want rich detail in the lower grey tones, exposing for 160 ISO gave the best results. This gives quite heavy highlights and you may wish to reduce the development time to make the film easier to print.
Textbook recommendation is 20%. To me that gave prints that were a little "dull and flat". Ended up with 320 ISO and a 10% cut as a compromise between shadow detail and preserving the nice original Tri-X tonality.

You may push the Tri-X to 800 or 1600, but it seems always to be at the expense of shadow detail. Lower and deep dark grays are not there anymore, just the blank film base with no information in it. That may well be an artistic choice, but one should be aware of the trade-offs.

As so often in life this information was readily available beforehand in textbooks, but one often needs to try it out for one self to believe the author 🙂 🙂

Tri-X IS ISO 400. ISO is defined in terms of shadow detail and contrast: it is absolutely nothing to do with mid grey.

Many people (including me) prefer a modest degree of overexposure. I commonly use 2/3 stop to a full stop (true ISO 500-650 in DD-X rated at EI 320). A stop and a third is more than most would want (EI -- NOT ISO -- 160) but then, if you cut exposure (and therefore contrast) as well, this speed is hardly surprising.

Yes, of course you lose shadow detail when you push, because ISO is defined in terms of shadow detail (and contrast). If the shadow detail were better, it would be a higher ISO.

Cheers,

R.

 

[telenous]

HP5+ is a fantastic equivalent to Tri-X, although the developing times are longer. This for me is all it takes to turn me off of it, especially when pushing film. 20+ minutes to process film? Forget it.

Well, pushing HP5+ in Xtol is excruciating at 18' or more. But DDX works slightly faster on HP5+ than TriX. And D76 is about the same for both, if you agree, as many do, that the times given in the Mass.Dev.Chart are rather short for TriX. It really depends on the developer used.

Going back to the OP, HP5+ compares well with TriX in some regards and it's the only other conventional b&w option when consistency/quality/availability are factored in. Still, it's a different film, and you'll need to tweak it to taste to see if it's love or hate in the end. Worth a try I should think.

.

 

[f/14]

Originally posted by Roger Hicks:

Tri-X IS ISO 400. ISO is defined in terms of shadow detail and contrast: it is absolutely nothing to do with mid grey.

An an engineer for 30 years and using my densitometer I would agree with you.
All my test included exposures series that resulted in a string of frames with varying density, - from blank film to saturated silver, thus finding the the contrast curve of each combination of exposure and development process. One of these exposure and development combinations gave the manufacturers curve.
But densitometry and strict definitions seldom makes pictures.

Actually, my point was that while there is neither magic nor surprises here, (it has all been in textbooks for ages), - as a photographer it may help to put these effects into words that relate to the actual result on the film and in the prints. Relating exposure and development to how varying this centered around the mid tones where the exposure meter operates helped me visualize my choices of exposure. And of the required development afterwords.
(Tried the Zone System for a while but found it a bit too cumbersome.)

So, whether you choose to put your exposure meter at 400 and dial in an EV correction out in the field, or whether you simply put the meter directly at the number of your perceived film speed and work from there might well be a matter of choice.

Cheers.
Svein.

 

[Harry Lime]

Love Tri-X. I've shot pretty much everything else, but it's by far my favorite. Huge exposure range and you can push or pull it to your hearts desire. There is something about the spectral response that is just perfect.

I highly recommend BarryThornton's 2-bath for Tri-X up to 400. It's completely idiot proof in use, dirt cheap and due to it's 2 bath nature will deliver excellent shadow detail, endless highlights and high consistency from roll to roll.

I push Tri-x to 1250 in Diafine. Again, a 2-bath developer and a classic combination. Diafine and Tri-X were made for each other.


The only film that has tempted me away from Tri-X is TMY-2 400. That is an amazing film. 400 asa speed with the grain of a traditional 100asa stock. Lots of shadow detail due to the linear toe. It works best for me in a 2-bath developer, to control the contrast and preserve the highlights in hard sunlight. The worst I can say about it is that I don't care for the spectral response, as much as that of Tri-X. It has a more modern look, but it's still very attractive.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Originally posted by Roger Hicks:

An an engineer for 30 years and using my densitometer I would agree with you.
All my test included exposures series that resulted in a string of frames with varying density, - from blank film to saturated silver, thus finding the the contrast curve of each combination of exposure and development process. One of these exposure and development combinations gave the manufacturers curve.
But densitometry and strict definitions seldom makes pictures.

Actually, my point was that while there is neither magic nor surprises here, (it has all been in textbooks for ages), - as a photographer it may help to put these effects into words that relate to the actual result on the film and in the prints. Relating exposure and development to how varying this centered around the mid tones where the exposure meter operates helped me visualize my choices of exposure. And of the required development afterwords.
(Tried the Zone System for a while but found it a bit too cumbersome.)

So, whether you choose to put your exposure meter at 400 and dial in an EV correction out in the field, or whether you simply put the meter directly at the number of your perceived film speed and work from there might well be a matter of choice.

Cheers.
Svein.

Like Roger said Tri-x is 400ISO meaning at film base plus fog add 0.1 at 1.3 DLog units to the right of that point (1/64 scene brightness ratio) it achieves 0.8 density minimum.
That is what ISO means, it's just a standard measured from the most important area of the film–the emergence or speed point.

Tri X and HP5 are more similar than most would realise here in the red is Tri-x plotted by me and placed at the same point on Ilford's factory curve.

Even though I used the same developer, the usual caveats apply but you must note they look similar.
Probably the biggest error people make is putting too much weight on the mid tones where the science tells us the crucial part is the inertia point.

I have seen many people metering incorrectly instead of metering for emerging shadow and stopping down two stops they meter from the shadow and sometimes add exposure putting the darkest part of the image on the upper mid tone, in the false belief they will have an 'easier to print neg' when in reality they're increasing grain, lowering sharpness and destroying tonal values.

Of course there is a reason to use lower EI if your scene brightness ratio is larger than the range of the film, adjust development too in that case.

Many just say Tri-x is really a 200 ISO film without understanding the science behind tonal reproduction.

 

[f/14]

My Lord.
The science is not disputed.
It's only that in practical photography (hopefully) involving any level of artistry it is only mildly interesting.
I rest my case.

 

[Ronald M]

Yep, well I do prefer images with grain, and more tonality rather than CLEAN and high contrast. But I can appreciate this effect as some of you have shown and it has it's place. So in case of what you are saying, exposing at 250 with a yellow filter will give me say, more shadow detail than what box speed would?

Outside, shadows are blue as they are lit by the sky. Yellow does not pass blue as well as no filter.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Outside, shadows are blue as they are lit by the sky. Yellow does not pass blue as well as no filter.

Dear Ronald,

And so, to hammer home your point (you made it well but it may need reinforcing) a yellow filter will normally INCREASE contrast on a sunny day.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Joe AC]

I could swear that I read somewhere that Salgado shot Tri-x 400 at 200 in order to increase the tonal range of greys.

Thanks
Joe

 

[Photo_Smith]

Exposing at 200 (presuming overexposure wrt Scene brightness) doesn't increase the range of greys available that is the combination of film and developer time and the gamma you develop to. Most films and especially medium and fast ones have a wider tonal range than the paper.

You can see that given a standard ISO of 400 that 1.3 DLogE units (1/64 SBR) or eight stops tonal range is well within the scope of both HP5 and Tri-x, in fact from the curve you can see it would be trivial to get an acceptable print with a spread of -1 to +2.

The danger is when you blindly downrate despite the conditions, coupled with poor metering can mean the darkest parts of the image sit on the curve where upper highlights (zone VI) should be, with Trix that would mean the mid tone would fall near the shoulder compressing them (losing tone)

 

[Photo_Smith]

My Lord.
The science is not disputed.
It's only that in practical photography (hopefully) involving any level of artistry it is only mildly interesting.
I rest my case.

The science and the artistry can often go hand in hand, the secret is being able to use the science to get the artistic result you originally imagined.