Tri-X Processing

[Barolodrinker]

I've developed a few rolls of Tri-X 400 in Infosol 3, but mistakingly processing them as T-Max 400, in other words developing for 6 mins, as opposed to 7:30 mins. However the negs are perfect, so what have I missed by not processing for that extra 1 minute 30 seconds? 😕

 

[Frontman]

"Perfect" is a relative term when it comes to judging negatives. Try developing more for the proper amount of time, your negs might be even more perfect.

I have often fudged with temps, times, and mixtures, but have always gotten generally good results. I'm still waiting fir perfect.

 

[Mcary]

I'm not an expert but from my understanding it takes longer for highlights to develop then shadows. Which means partly shortened development times such as what you used most impact the highlight areas in of the shot/film. So for shots that are perfectly exposed it could mean underdeveloped highlights but for shot that are over exposed it could mean retaining rather then clipping/blowing the highlights.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Print them and see what you get. The shorter developing time will give lower contrast negatives. If you shot in contrasty light (like harsh sun) then the negs will actually be easier to print with the shorter time. If you shot under softer light, like an overcast day, you may need to use higher-contrast paper grade to print on.

The published times are just starting points anyway. The actual results you get will vary depending on how you agitate, how accurate your thermometer is, how carefully you measured out the chemicals when mixing them, etc.

 

[charjohncarter]

That is 20%. So if the scenes on the roll were very high contrast you would be using N-2 contraction. This will bring the extreme highlights down to 6 or 7 while preserving shadow detail. If normal scene you will have to increase highlight level. Or in other words, Chris is right.