Why I can't stop using Tri-X

Ronald_H said:
After a few years of digital I got sorta bored. I did a lot of concert shooting back then and the transition from film to digital was very welcome. Not that film couldn't cut it, but processing, scanning and postprocessing, man, that ate up a lot of time. But digital got kinda boring and repetitive after a while.

I never managed to get the 'look' of earlier B/W concert work myself. So I bought a Nikon FM for fun and started shooting some B/W, but the lab was't very consistent in developing my film. So I ended up in forums like this one and learned about developing yourself. I made the jump and started with Diafine and Tri-X.

What I got was this, actually from my very first roll

Wildest dreams and all that
Click to expand...

They're wonderful pictures! Did you push it or just shoot Tri-X in 400?
 
I agree, there is something about Trix which is hard to put into words.

Untitled-9jjj.jpg


Trix 400 + D76.
 
jan normandale said:
I like Trix / 400 ISO and I dev it in HC110 : it's outstanding
Click to expand...

Frighteningly detailed, Jan. Very nicely done. I would absolutely second your assessment of HC110 as the "proper" developer for Trix, and it even works in 135; this (also posted in another thread) was shot at EI3200, and souped in HC110h (1+63) for 25 minutes, low agitation:

2738532008_24c73f1e93.jpg


I love this film; really.


Cheers,
--joe.
 
P-Joe, interesting subject. There's a similar flat iron building in Toronto by Union Station that looks like this one. It's a popular photographic subject and is a composite condo and hotel.

I've used HC110 at 1:100 for an hour stand dev'ing on film 200 - 400 ISO and it works much like this one of yours.
 
jan normandale said:
P-Joe, interesting subject.
Click to expand...

I think this, too, was a condo/hotel; I don't recall, as I was wandering aimlessly around Boston's Back Bay in the middle of the night.

jan normandale said:
I've used HC110 at 1:100 for an hour stand dev'ing on film 200 - 400 ISO...
Click to expand...

Ooh, now I have got to try that. I've been looking for something to make my Trix@400 sit up and bark. Dilution H does ok for normal EI, but I'd love to try your approach next.

You're literal about the "stand" bit, then; it's initial agitation and then nothing?


Cheers,
--joe.
 
planetjoe said:
I think this, too, was a condo/hotel; I don't recall, as I was wandering aimlessly around Boston's Back Bay in the middle of the night.



Ooh, now I have got to try that. I've been looking for something to make my Trix@400 sit up and bark. Dilution H does ok for normal EI, but I'd love to try your approach next.

You're literal about the "stand" bit, then; it's initial agitation and then nothing?


Cheers,
--joe.
Click to expand...

Joe, flip me your email in a PM and I'll send you a 'stand development' Word Doc outlining it all.

cheers Jan
 
telenous said:
I like very much pulled TriX in Rodinal esp. for the brilliant (but not washed out) whites (lol sounds like an ad for a detergent). I don't use often the film that way but whenever I did it was a treat. It's with standard pushing that I 've always had problems with (mushy shadows in a variety of speed enhancing developers), so much so that I prefer HP5+ and Neopan 1600 for their nominal speeds and beyond. Rodinal in higher dilutions gives a moderate compensating effect with good acutance and you may circumvent the speed penalty with stand development. I 've seen some truly beautiful photos (sadly not mine) with this treatment.


.
Click to expand...

TX in Rodinal 1:100 with much reduced agitation is perfect, IMO, unless the subject/scene is low contrast. The compensating effect of Rodinal 1:100 makes it inappropriate for flat scenes. HOWEVER, 1:50 is not to my taste; for that I prefer XTol, though I have not mastered it yet.

Lately I am thinking that even in Rodinal 1:100 EI of 400 is not out of the question ... my standard is EI 250, but truly, I think 400 might be sufficient, if not better. The XTol/Rodinal combination a la Honus (Robert Vincent) works really, really well, and is perhaps the ultimate. I need to do a more structured test.

That said, TMY-2 is fabulous ...
 
BTW, TX in Diafine is, to my taste, just weird. The "jumps" in contrast are too jarring, losing the midtone gradation that can be so wonderful when TX is shot slightly over (EI 200-250) and with a compensating developer. I have seen a grand total of one TX photo in Diafine that I've liked.

For TX @ 1600, Rodinal & XTol worked pretty well, though I might reduce the time a tad next time.

2141829689_bc4cdfd5c2_o.jpg
 
Double Negative said:
I tried Xtol for the first time with Tri-X over the weekend; diluted 1:1 for 9m at 68º using the recommended 30s intervals for agitation (I used 3 inversions out of the recommended 2-5). The results are a nice negative and surprisingly little grain. Even scanned at 3200-6400dpi on an Epson V700.

I definitely plan to continue with this combination.
Click to expand...

Reducing agitation might be an interesting exercise. I agitate 3 gentle inversions every 3 minutes.

2396780363_356292c87f_o.jpg
 
I reduce agitation when pushing to help control highlight. I agree, TriX is a fantatic film and i love it. grain is FAR smaller in Xtol 1+1 compared to D76 1+1, ut I actually prefer the look of the latter to a degree. Just has more sparkle that is not just about grain. cant place it better than that, but a very distinctive look. I might try with DDX next for more speed than D76 and possibly a similar look. I find Xtol too smooth in some regards! Fx-39 is sharp as hell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom