Tri-X/Xtol too dense!!... general questions

[Kip Duff]

Dear Group:
After checking my shuter speeds with my Calumet speed tester (speeds spot-on) and cross-checking my primary meter (Minolta IVF) with several other meters (all spot-on), I am at a loss to find the cause of over-dense negs. I'm using new Tri-X (TXP 320) exposed at 320 and developed normal in medium sized tanks. HP5 negs (EI400) were even denser. I develop in dark with SS film holders- agitation every 1 min (lift-rotate right/drain/re-imerse...wait a minute: then lift-rotate left/drain/re-emerse). Xtol stock @ 72F: 6.25 min (Kodak specs). I have done about 30 4X5's with my current gallon solution with only about +5% adjustment for depletion on last run. My facility is not able to bring solution down to 68F at this time. In archives, I noticed that HC110 B is popular.

In the past (13 years ago), I used old Tri-X/D76, N/N with good predictability and rersults. I was often surprised to discover that negatives that at first appeared too thin, printed the best. I proofed on Ilford multigrade and printed on Galerie or Insignia (8X10 contact prints- I still have not seen a printing technique that comes close to contact printing a good neg on these papers). I am now scanning (Epson 4990) and ink printing enlargements (Epson 4800), so I am wrestling with alot of stuff. I believe scanning/ink printing gives better results that traditional enlarging- that's why I would only contact print my 8X10's in the past. I was thinking of getting a densitometer, but it occured to me that I already may have a good one: the Epson 4990 scanner. Can I- is anyone using their scanners as densitometers? If so, do the programs have ability to give traditional densitometer values? I mostly use the scanner software that came with the Epson but I also have SilverFast Ai upgrade.

Is there a consensus on what density range works well for scanning when compared to traditional paper? For the time being, I'm going to try to shoot for the same range that worked well for traditional printing- my old negs that I am now able to enlarge digitally look good. Thanks, Kip.

[John Cook]

It is not possible, without having the negative in my hand, to tell whether the excessive density is from exposure or development.

It would make our detective work easier if you could make that determination.

[Bruce Watson]

As John says, hard to say. But I suspect that you are overdeveloping. The massive development chart lists Tri-X sheet in XTOL stock at 6.0 minutes at 20C. You are going longer, and at 4F higher temperature.

I've optimized my process for scanning, and found that developing Tri-X to be one to one and a half stops thinner than what you'd want in the darkroom gives excellent results. But if you are ever going to print them in the darkroom, then optimize for that. Scanning a negative optimized for the darkroom works just fine.

[Kip Duff]

John:
Since my metering and shutter speeds are accurate (apparently), that's pointing twards the developement. But, my initial gut reaction was that it was the exposure- but I don't see how. I cannot think of a way to determine by looking at the neg per your suggestion, but I'll give it some thought. My initial belief that it is an exposure problem is bourn out by the fact that they are dense overall with medium to low contrast (people shot in indirect sunlight). I would expect increased contrast with overdev. You bring up a good issue and I going to pursue it. Kip.

On the issue of HC-110 B: I was going to try it, but dev times are way too short for me (3.5 min @72F); especially if pulling is necessary.

[Kip Duff]

Bruce:
I thought you might be on to something there: but massive dev chart specs are for "tray development with constant agitation" (similar to Kodak specs for tray). The first time I tried tray dev, I scratched neg; plus, alot of times, I'm doing 6 to 12 negs at a time. I never tried tray again. MDC does not spec for "large tank; 1 min intervals". Apparently, the trend these days is away from large tank technique- I can't see why. My tank and SS holders seem the best way to go to me. Thanks, Kip.

[Henry Ambrose]

Its time for a test!

That's probably not the answer you want, or may be too obvious - but it is how to solve this question immediately and with certainty.

Three sheets of the same scene developed for different times. Pull one out at 4:30 the next at 5:15 and the last at 6 minutes. One of them will be best and that's your new time.

And I'd think about diluting the Xtol (maybe 1:1) to get longer, more easily controlled times. I think its easier to control the process when you have more time to work with. I generally refuse to use any development time shorter than 10 minutes. But that's a whole 'nuther can of worms - so save that idea for later.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I agree with Henery, especially about changing to 1:1

[David Karp]

I agree with Henry on the 1:1 too. You might even consider trying 1:2.

[Eric Brody]

I concur with the other posters. After you've measured everything you can; shutter speeds and meter, it's time for a film speed test and only then, a development time test. In point of fact, accuracy in these matters is less important than consistency with the meter, shutter speeds, and development. Like Henry, I like longer development times. They allow for more even development and less angst about how long it takes to get rid of developer and get the film into the stop. There are lots of sources for testing techniques both using and not using a densitometer.

I've been developing film for many years ( pun intended, leaving film in developer for years is NOT a good idea). It's uncommon for the listed time to be the one I end up using. In fact, it's uncommon for the manufacturer's listed film speed to be the one I end up using. I probably have spent too much time doing tests but at least I now know how MY system works, with my tanks, techniques, thermometer, agitation, timers, pouring speeds, and printing techniques.

Last, I can think of no good reason for a small volume amateur to use straight xtol. While Kodak no longer recommends dilutions greater than 1:1, many world class photographers (I'm not included), use 1:2 and even 1:3. Read up on it, pick a starter, and give it a try.

The only thing that really matters is your prints.

[ronald moravec]

You want t use stock because it keeps between sessions.

My Epson scanner likes negs developed for a condenser enlarger. So does the the Minolta 5400 for 35mm.

Take your bottle of developer and fix and place it in an ice water wath or in the frig `til it gets to 68. Then warm up the ice water bath to 68 and use it for a water bath for the developing tanks.

That or recalibrate to 75 degrees. Whatever you do, STANDARDISE,

Some Farmers reducer and rewashing will fix the negs. With large negs, I brush it on dense areas so negs are easier to print.

[Kip Duff]

Henry, John B., Dave, Eric:
I'm going to approach the problem first as an exposure problem although I can't for the life of me see why. I am bracketing exposures N+1/2, N, N-1/2, and N-1 stop to get a grip. This batch develope N. I have switched to D-76 (Xtol in theory depleted- although it was still burning up the negs!?) I'm going to develop eight 4X5 exposures now. It's bad to change a variable in a test like this but I thought I'd give D-76 a try. I wanted to try Xtol 1:1 but there's a problem when using medium tanks- holds about a gallon: that means I would only get to develop 2 runs of film if I go by Kodak recommendations to discard after single use. Are you re-using 1:1 solution? I totally agree with you about long dev times- gives you time to be in control. It sounds to me like you are using tubes and single use developers. I need to research tubes more (I'll bet there's good info in archives). The only advantage I can see to tubes is that it might be the best way to avoid streaks/uneven developing. I've had big trouble with that type of thing sometimes- obviously with certain subjects (especially sky brought down around Zone V)- sometimes major turbulance patterns. Shooting people against white background- no problem with uneven dev. Another concern I have about tubes: it can only be a "constant agitation" technique. This in theory might not give shadow areas enough development if they needed it (I think they usually do). Maybe high dilution rates "compensate". Also, what if you want to do alot of films at once? I seem to remember that I liked the way HC110 B treated shadows but I don't see how I (we) could use it considering miniscule developing times. Eric: just saw your post: Xtol 1:3 could be something that could be reasonably used in large tank/single use routine; although I get the impression that all of you are using tubes (or trays?). D-76 is iced down now- let me see if I can stop torching these negs. Thanks, Kip.

[David Karp]

Kip,

As with all developers I am aware of, any time you use a dilution other than the stock solution it is used as a one-shot developer.

For what it is worth, when I was developing mostly 120 film, I used X-Tol 1:3 a lot. If you photograph a lot of high contrast landscapes or other subjects, it works pretty well. Later, I started experimenting with divided developers like Diafine, Divided D-76, and Barry Thornton's 2-Bath (a variation on Divided D-23). I find that I like the results that I get with these formulae and traditional grain films like HP5+, FP4+, and of course, Tri-X. If you photograph high contrast subjects, you might want to give one of these a try. If you like D-76, try the divided version. I have only tried TMX and TMY with Diafine, and did not like the results. Others disagree. Personally, I think that these developers work better with traditional grain films.

If you are interested, here is Thornton's 2-Bath formula: A bath - 750 ml water, 6.5g metol, 80g sodium sulfite, water to make 1L. B bath - 750 ml water, 12g sodium metaborate for N development, water to make 1L (7g/liter for N-1, and 20g/liter for N+1). I have also tried the formula with the sodium sulfite split 50/50 between the two baths (40g in each ) with good success. 5 minutes in each bath without a wash in between works well. As with Diafine, extra time or temperature variations make little or no difference.

Some people think that these developers are a bad idea. One chemist told me that there was no way I would even get an image on my film with the Thornton developer. Well, that is the only developer I use now, and I get images on my film all the time. With good detail in the shadows, and rarely a blown highlight. In super contrasty situations, you can use the N-1 B bath, and that will tame the highlights pretty well. It may be worth a try.

For a short discussion of two baths, see The Print, by Ansel Adams.

Good luck.

[ronald moravec]

If you are getting turblance or surge marks, you are not agitating enough. The high density areas are the ones where used developer is is replaced with fresh. The other thin areas ares are not receiving enough fresh developer. Agitating more than required does not increase density.

Withdraw the hangars, tilt 60 deg to one side. HOLD TO DRAIN 4 SEC, replace in tank, and repeat tilting in other direction.

Bump the hangars or hangar rack HARD on the tank to dislodge any air under the top clips upon first imersion and before each rest cycle.

D76 can be mixed fresh for about $3 a gallon if you purchase chemicals in decent quantities and a scale. HC110 is $4 a gallon, but then you will be tied to Kodak who wants out of analog photography business.

Ilford`s HP5 is very similar to tri x and developes in more reasonable times like 7 1/2 min in D76.

We could talk all day about agitation, but let me assure you, marks are from insufficient and incomplete agitation, not too much.

[Henry Ambrose]

Kip,
I'm using Xtol at 1:3 for sheet film in a jobo tank on a motor base or in the same tanks and roll film with manual agitation and occasionally trays (trays just for quick, one sheet runs). All one-shot. I get wonderful, consistent results. I found tubes to be a pain to use but others like them.

I think Xtol 1:3 in gallon tanks with hangers would be great! You'd get at least five runs from each 5 liter kit - or more if you had a smaller tank for short runs. Be sure to maintain the "100ml stock Xtol per 80 sq in. of film rule".

Ronald gave you great info on agitation in tanks. Dan Smith asked you several questions in a grumpy sorta way but they are valid questions and I can't help but think that you're overlooking something there. How do the prints look? Or maybe how do the scans look?

Bruce's advice for scanning is spot on. My additional advice is that you want negatives that contain as much of the information from the scene in a way that your scanner can retrieve that info. Fit the negative densities to your scanner's range just as you would fit it to your paper on a wet darkroom.

Be sure to post your results. All too often threads like this get solved for the poster but the rest of the world never knows what happened or why. That seems a waste of the forum to me.

Good luck.

[Kip Duff]

Dear contributors:
I havn't been able to update because my graphics computer failed- but, luckilly I was able to find problem: everything is OK after replacing power supply (whew!). Also, I am swamped with work at my "day-job". I am anxious to nail this sucker. The D-76 didn't yield much different results. I believe the best negs were N-1: in other words exposed at 640ASA. However, since my limited darkroom is only setup for film (and because I am enjoying for now the shift to digital process downstream of the creation of the negative), I have not been making my customary proof prints. The proof prints were a non- elastic, solid standard . This points out one of the problems of the digital process: to many options (or worse: equipment that's "helping" by making automatic adjustments that don't seem to be able to be disabled). When I made proofs, I knew exactly where I stood based on how long I exposed the paper and what contrast grade I used. Now my scanning software appears to be making a trillion adjustments without me asking it to. Basically what I'm saying is I need to go back about three squares and start to standardize and have rock solid points of reference. I'm still convinced that my negs are too dense. I'm generally have been able to get a good idea of neg density (before proofing) thru habit and experience (also by looking at the neg while it is laying on a printed page). I'm also going to start (dread) proofing on paper again with as close to my original setup as possible (it's been 13 years; but I have kept good notes). I am goint to start measuring my old negs with my scanner software: Epson for instance shows "before" and "after" values at any sampling point you choose during the prescan, with the "after" being somewhere between 0 and 256. I may also buy a densitometer; however, using the scanner as a densitometer is a nice idea because you're viewing enlarged images of the neg on the screen and can choose sampling points with precision. I want to be able to find some absolute metering phase in my scanning software ( I also have SilverFast Ai) that is B E F O R E any marvelously helpful automatic adjustments that it's going to make. I can document these values and compare them to the values observed on my current negs. Hopefully I can can find a way to convert these values to conventional densitomer reading values to know where I stand in in terms of the commonly cited negative densitometer specs. Then I can dial in even more by starting to paper-proof again. I am really starting from scratch and have not come up with a routine that I'm satisfied with. I intend to shot-while-learning ( a dangerous gig): the weekend's photos were bad on 2 fronts: too dense for my liking and I don't think I like the images even if they were technically perfect. I am stoked by all of your responses and look foreward to addressing each one. I definitly want to maintain this thread, or may re-post it at top to be more conspicuous (I don't know the etiquette here yet)- this is good stuff. To respond to Dan: at this point, my rough assesment is that they are overexposed but I intend to check that out in much greater detail later. Henry: I'm glad to hear Xtol is widely used 1:3 and I am examining the idea of using Xtol exclusively. Thanks all, Kip.