Rating Tri-x 320

[dazedgonebye]

Just got in a box of Tri-X.
I've read of folks rating it at 200 iso. Any thoughts here on how it should be rated?
My impulse is to rate it at the box speed. I got it because it's faster than FP4+ (of course) and I want that speed if at all possible.
Most of my shooting is in full light in AZ.

[Bruce Watson]

Just got in a box of Tri-X.
I've read of folks rating it at 200 iso. Any thoughts here on how it should be rated?
My impulse is to rate it at the box speed. I got it because it's faster than FP4+ (of course) and I want that speed if at all possible.
Most of my shooting is in full light in AZ.

Do your personal Exposure Index (EI) testing. Why guess when you can know?

Different developers and processes give different EIs. XTOL 1:3 and rotary processing (continuous agitation) gives me an EI of 320 (box speed) for 5x4 Tri-X. Will that work for you? You have to do the testing to know.

[dazedgonebye]

Do your personal Exposure Index (EI) testing. Why guess when you can know?

Different developers and processes give different EIs. XTOL 1:3 and rotary processing (continuous agitation) gives me an EI of 320 (box speed) for 5x4 Tri-X. Will that work for you? You have to do the testing to know.

As usual, I ask for easy answers and someone replies that I've got to work. What, have you been talking to my Father? :)

I plan to use Barry Thorton's 2-bath formula. It's my standard and about all I'm not too lazy to use.

[Renato Tonelli]

Do your personal Exposure Index (EI) testing. Why guess when you can know?

Different developers and processes give different EIs. XTOL 1:3 and rotary processing (continuous agitation) gives me an EI of 320 (box speed) for 5x4 Tri-X. Will that work for you? You have to do the testing to know.

I have been using XTOL 1:1 with the Jobo and have rated it higher than box speed. However I have been wanting to try XTOL 1:3 but have been discouraged. Out of curiosity, what is your developing time/temperature. I am assuming you are using the latest version of Tri-X.

[Marko]

As usual, I ask for easy answers and someone replies that I've got to work. What, have you been talking to my Father? :)

When you do things right, you do them only once. That's the easy way. :)

Back to your question and FWIW, I tested Tri-X in 1:1 D-76 rotary at 68 F and found the true EI to be 160.

But that's my light meter, camera, shutter, tap water, thermometer and motor base and the way I use them. You could use all the same and still get different result. So, both your dad and Bruce were right... :)

[Bjorn Nilsson]

For easy answers, maybe this will help a little bit. At what EI do you shoot your FP4? Are you satisfied with that, i.e. are the shadow details to your liking?
Now, once you have established an EI with one of the "good ol" norm films (I.e. one of the well known and much used films like FP4, HP5, TX, TXP, TMX, TMY ...), chances are that you should correct another "good ol" film in about the same way. E.g. if you shoot your FP4 at EI 80 (-2/3 of a stop), the TXP will need a similar adjustment, i.e. EI200 (-2/3 again). At least that is a good starting point.

//Björn

[Bruce Watson]

What, have you been talking to my Father? :)


No. Mine. :D

[sanking]

Even assuming we are all on the same page with our field exposures, and that we are all developing for the same average gradient for a specific process, there is an important characteristic of TRI-X 320 that has not been mentioned. That characteristic is the shape of its characteristic curve, which with traditional developent has a very long toe and somewhat flaring shoulder. If you expose TRI-X 320 at box speed with traditional development you will put shadow values at the very end of the toe, which will give very poor separation in the shadows from the bottom of the curve until the point where the straight line begins. For this reason most Zone and BTZS photographers rate TRI-X at about 1/2 box spped, which pushes the shadow values up and gives them greater separation (or contrast).

Another solution is to rate TRI-X 320 at box speed and develop in a two-bath developer like divided D23 or Diafine. It has been my experience that two-bath development gives a much more straight line curve compared to traditional development. And the results are virtually ideal for photogrphers who plan to scan their film and don't need to develop to a specific CI.

Sandy King

[Bruce Watson]

I have been using XTOL 1:1 with the Jobo and have rated it higher than box speed. However I have been wanting to try XTOL 1:3 but have been discouraged. Out of curiosity, what is your developing time/temperature. I am assuming you are using the latest version of Tri-X.

I've pretty much forgotten. I was using Tri-X, then went on a color jag for a few years. When I came back to B&W I switched over to TMY-2 which I like considerably more than Tri-X which I had loved for decades.

I suspect that you'll get very similar results from 1:3 and 1:1. It's not much of a change, but it's useful if you are using developer one-shot like I do, or if you want longer development times. All other things being equal, it should be within 1/3 stop on EI, so your EI for 1:1 is a good starting point for your EI using 1:3 I would think.

[Ken Lee]

What Sandy said !

It's never just some film. It's always some film, in some developer.

By the way, I never really had a look at the formula (http://www.unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html) for Divided D-23. Man is it simple.

[Oren Grad]

Even assuming we are all on the same page with our field exposures, and that we are all developing for the same average gradient for a specific process, there is an important characteristic of TRI-X 320 that has not been mentioned. That characteristic is the shape of its characteristic curve, which with traditional developent has a very long toe and somewhat flaring shoulder. If you expose TRI-X 320 at box speed with traditional development you will put shadow values at the very end of the toe, which will give very poor separation in the shadows from the bottom of the curve until the point where the straight line begins. For this reason most Zone and BTZS photographers rate TRI-X at about 1/2 box spped, which pushes the shadow values up and gives them greater separation (or contrast).

This is also why the EI adjustment you make for one film won't necessarily be optimal for another, even if they're both "traditional" or "modern" films. There's a lot of variation in curve shape even within a class.

IOW, Bruce plus assorted fathers are right. :)

[venchka]

Renato,

Based on my experience with Xtol 1:3, 68F-20C, continuous agitation in Jobo tanks: 10 minutes. That may not be perfect for all films and all E.I.s., but it's very close.

Good luck!

[Alan Davenport]

Well 200 is only 2/3 of a stop more exposure than 320. If you have important highlights, you might want to bracket an extra shot at 320 or 400, but otherwise I doubt if you'll have any problem rating it at 200.

The old newspaper fotog who was my very first tutor, once told me, "A full stop is the smallest exposure change that makes any difference." Of course, he was speaking from the experience of a man whose job was to get a usable print that could then be screened for newspaper reproduction. Using Tri-X, if that helps.

[sanking]

BTW, some might be interested in the fact that Pyrocat can be used as a divided developer, as can many developers that come in two parts with the reducer in Part A and the alkaline accelerator in Part B.

I use Pyrocat as a divided developer by diluting Part A 1:10 to make working solution A, and Part B is also diluted 1:10 to make working solution B. To develop, just develop for five minutes in working solution A, discard and immediately place the film in working solution B for five minutes. Stop, fix and wash.

Although I prefer to discard the used working solutions, it is possible to re-use them three or four times within a window of two or three hours. Don't try to save for another day, however.

Sandy


What Sandy said !

It's never just some film. It's always some film, in some developer.

By the way, I never really had a look at the formula (http://www.unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html) for Divided D-23. Man is it simple.

[Ken Lee]

Maestro -

May I ask: When combined, we dilute both parts by 1:100, 1:200, etc.

When divided, why dilute both parts by 1:10 instead ?

[sanking]

Ken,

The stronger dilution is necessary for two-bath development with Pyrocat because of the very small amount of reducer in Stock A, and the film can only absorb so much at one time. If you were to compare, for example, the actual amount of metol in a liter of working solution A of divided D23 (7.5 grams) with the amount of catechol in a liter of the 1:10 dilution (5.0 grams) you will see that there is actually less reducer in the divided Pyrocat solution than in the divided D23 solution.

So it is not surprising that we need such a strong dilution of Pyrocat for divided development where the film has to aborb as much of the reducer as possible at one time. The amazing thing is that such a small amount of catchol is needed for full development in the 1:1:100 dilution.

In any event, the 1:10 dilution is intended to give an average gradient of about .55 with most films. If you can live with an average gradient ofslightly less than .50 a dilution of 1:20 should work fine.

Sandy




Maestro -

May I ask: When combined, we dilute both parts by 1:100, 1:200, etc.

When divided, why dilute both parts by 1:10 instead ?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Sandy,

In divided Pyrocat-HD, is constant agitation given in solution A, followed by none in solution B?

[sanking]

Andrew,

Constant agitation will work fine, as it does with Diafine and divided D23. However, constant agitation is not necessary with two bath development. What I normally do with film that is developed in tanks is to give an initial agitation of 30 seconds, followed by 10 seconds of agitation every minute thereafter. I do the same for both A and B solutions.

What I definitely don't recommend is to just leave the film to stand in the developer in either solution A or B. You will get more reducer in the film with some agitation in solution A, and some agitation in solution B guards against uneven development.

Sandy King




Sandy,

In divided Pyrocat-HD, is constant agitation given in solution A, followed by none in solution B?

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks Sandy. I'll give it a shot...and sorry Dazedgonebye for hijacking your thread.

[sanking]

Not really hijacked IMO as the question of two-bath development is relevant to the question of the OP regarding film speed. The larger issue is that two-bath development may allow one to use a higher effective film speed, all other factors being equal. I can not say that this is true with every two-bath developer, but in my experience it is true of the ones I have tested with Tri-X 320.

Also, OP mentioned that he planned to use Barry Thornton's two -bath developer, which is a version of divided D23. Unless OP is using Barry Thornton's Diaxactol as a two-bath developer, which is the way he first marketed it. If so, Diaxactol is a two-bath developer with strong family similarity to Pyrocat.

Sandy





Thanks Sandy. I'll give it a shot...and sorry Dazedgonebye for hijacking your thread.

[Renato Tonelli]

Renato,

Based on my experience with Xtol 1:3, 68F-20C, continuous agitation in Jobo tanks: 10 minutes. That may not be perfect for all films and all E.I.s., but it's very close.

Good luck!

Thanks Bruce, Wayne.
The reason I was asking is that I tend to accumulate exposed film until I have time to develop them (but mostly because I find film developing a chore) and I often go through a 5L solution (used 1:1) very quickly; sometimes I need to make a fresh batch to continue. I have acquired the bad habit of using the developer as one-shot.
Come June I should have some time available to do some tests with the 1:3 dilution.

[aduncanson]

Well 200 is only 2/3 of a stop more exposure than 320. If you have important highlights, you might want to bracket an extra shot at 320 or 400, but otherwise I doubt if you'll have any problem rating it at 200.


My approach is similar but arrived at backwards. I shoot one sheet at the rated speed and then another opened up a stop. I figure that I can tolerate overexposure better than underexposure, and that here must be some reason why film holders have two sides. If I consistently prefer the denser negative of the pair I'll move my EI down a bit

[dazedgonebye]

Not really hijacked IMO as the question of two-bath development is relevant to the question of the OP regarding film speed. The larger issue is that two-bath development may allow one to use a higher effective film speed, all other factors being equal. I can not say that this is true with every two-bath developer, but in my experience it is true of the ones I have tested with Tri-X 320.

Also, OP mentioned that he planned to use Barry Thornton's two -bath developer, which is a version of divided D23. Unless OP is using Barry Thornton's Diaxactol as a two-bath developer, which is the way he first marketed it. If so, Diaxactol is a two-bath developer with strong family similarity to Pyrocat.

Sandy

I use Barry's metol formula. It's encouraging that it might allow me to shoot at 320 iso. I'll try to get some test shots in this weekend.

Thanks for the discussion guys.

[Jim Graves]

This is what Thornton wrote about film speed in his two-bath Dixactol:

"Film speed is full due to the artificial speed created by the stain. Use the makers' stated film speeds - no need to cut as with normal developers for optimum negative quality."

Thornton, Edge of Darkness, p. 102, fourth full paragraph.

By the way ... Edge of Darkness is a great read. Very entertaining and a really good introduction to accutance, staining developers, two bath development, and many other related areas.

[sanking]

Jim,

Edge of Darkness is a good read, and I agree with Thornton's conclusion about film speed with two-bath developers. However, IMO he made a mistake in attributing the increase in effective film speed to stain. Stain has nothing to do with it, as one can easily prove with good sensitometry. Stain is good for other reasons, but so far as I can determine, it does not improve film speed.


Sandy King




This is what Thornton wrote about film speed in his two-bath Dixactol:

"Film speed is full due to the artificial speed created by the stain. Use the makers' stated film speeds - no need to cut as with normal developers for optimum negative quality."

Thornton, Edge of Darkness, p. 102, fourth full paragraph.

By the way ... Edge of Darkness is a great read. Very entertaining and a really good introduction to accutance, staining developers, two bath development, and many other related areas.

[Jim Graves]

Sandy ... well I'm certainly not qualified to argue with either you or Thornton ... what I got from Thornton's explanation is that the stain assisted in "grain masking" and apparent separation which allowed a faster image to appear slower ... if that makes sense.

Thornton seemed to be less interested in objective measurements than subjective appearance to the viewer.

[sanking]

Jim,

I can not argue with that.

Sandy




Thornton seemed to be less interested in objective measurements than subjective appearance to the viewer.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I tried two part pyrocat-hd with hp5+ just now and it turned out reasonably well. A tad on the thin side, but that could be my fault for rushing the test exposure. I used BTZS tube for both A and B, constant agitation. I think I'll try it in trays tomorrow. Now back to the hockey game.

[Jim Graves]

Andrew ... if you've not used staining developers much before, I'd print those "thin" negatives before I tried another approach ... you may be surprised how un-thin your prints look.

Also, meant to PM you to ask what lens you used for the "Grave Stone, St. Mary’s" photo. And, to say I really liked "Manning Park Mist." Nice website.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hi Jim,

The Grave Stone at St. Mary's was shot on HP5 4x5 through a magnifying glass that I picked up at a dollar store. It's about a 120mm focal length. Developed in pyrocat-hd.
I had to stick a couple of ND filters in front of the glass as I shot the image mid-afternoon, in the blazing Saskatchewan sun. That image is one of my favourites from that trip. I'm glad you like the Manning Park image, too. Thank you!! I've got some more images shot through magnifying glass that I've been meaning to upload to my site...
Oh, I've been using staining developers since about '99. I'm used to seeing my negatives on the heavier side. I will take your advice and print that thin one. I imagine it's fine for silver, but not kallitypes.