PDA

View Full Version : Tri-X 320 and Rodinal -- recipes?



Sanders McNew
5-Mar-2005, 12:28
When I shoot roll film, I shoot Tri-X 400 -- I expose it at EI 200 and process in Rodinal. In sheet film, I've been shooting Bergger -- rate it at EI100 and process in Rodinal (1:25 for 6.5 minutes in a Jobo tank). I've wanted to try Tri-X sheets but have held off for a couple of reasons. First, I gather the TX 320 sheet emulsion is quite different from the TX 400 roll film. And second, I've found no recipes for processing it in Rodinal.

How different is the 320 sheet film from the 400 roll film? And why no Rodinal recipes? If someone could comment, and/or post their formula for process Tri-X 320 sheets in Rodinal, or explain why it's a bad idea, I would be grateful.

I am happy generally with the Bergger sheet film -- see www.mcnew.net for samples. Tri-X roll film gave starker images -- I'm not sure if that is attributable to the emulsion or the greater degree of enlargement required to make a print from roll film as opposed to a 4x5 sheet. Thoughts?

Sanders McNew

www.mcnew.net

Jay Lnch
5-Mar-2005, 13:59
Sanders, I love your images of Sunnie.....

I process Tri-x in Rodinal 1:25 68 for about 7.5 min I shoot a little lose so you will want to test for yourself.

I see you also shoot Polaroid type 55. I just picked up some to play with. What speed to up rate the film at to shoot for Neg and what from prints?

thanks...

Sanders McNew
5-Mar-2005, 19:14
Jay, thanks for the reply. What EI do you rate Tri-X for that recipe? I'm guessing you're exposing around 200 or so, yes?

As for Polaroid's Type 55, it's delicious stuff. Forget about the print, expose for the negative. Optimally, I would shoot it at EI 32 or 25. Unlike conventional emulsions, though, it seems to tolerate underexposure reasonably well -- I've gotten away with exposing it at EI 50 and beyond, and gotten useable negatives. (By comparison, I've found Type 55's 3x4 counterpart, Type 665, extremely intolerant of underexposure. Beware!)

Thanks very much for the compliments on the photographs. In Sunnie's case, though, I don't deserve the credit. Sunnie is incapable of being poorly photographed. I just stood there and tripped the shutter.

Sanders McNew

www.mcnew.net

Jay Lnch
5-Mar-2005, 20:24
Yes 200 is what I aim for. Most of the time when shooting outdoors I don't meter that closely so I could be a stop off in either direction. I have only shot it in 8x10 for 4x5 I shoot APX100 and Berger 200.

I am going to look Sunnie up and see if we can shoot one day. I don't think she lives far from me.

thanks...

Jim Galli
6-Mar-2005, 00:40
Sanders, I'm shooting the Kodak Aerial Panatomic X which is supposedly the same as Polaroid 55 except that a 5X7 sheet is about 17. I find when the film is inexpensive I do wackier stuff which sometimes turn out to be the best shots.

Sanders McNew
23-Mar-2005, 10:05
Jim Galli: Okay, you've done it to me again. :-)

Of course I googled Aerial Pan X and discovered that all roads lead to Jim Galli on the subject. I now know: (1) B+H doesn't sell it. (2) It comes in 5" x 1000' rolls. (3) You use it. (4) Unless you're shooting like a maniac ... entirely possible, as I do that ... you must have several freezers' worth of the stuff on hand.

Care to sell a few hundred sheets to a fellow photog? :-)

I've been shooting a 4x5 Sinar Norma. A couple of days ago, I picked up a 5x7 Norma rear assembly. I still have to find a bellows -- any suggestions greatly appreciated -- and some 5x7 holders but then I'll be ready to start shooting the larger format. Soooo your mention of 5x7 sheets hit me at a vulnerable moment.

Hoping this note finds you well,

Sanders McNew

www.mcnew.net