TriX + Rodinal

[Marcial]

I moved to large format (4x5) a few months ago and started with TriX 320 and Rodinal. The reason is that I have been using that combo (TriX 400 actually) in smaller formats for more than 30 years and I am quite happy. But I feel something is not working in 4x5 with TriX. I have problems of lost details in the shadows and, sometimes, blown highlights.

I shot LF outdoors, mostly landscape. I develop in combi plan and also in trays. Agitation, development times and dilutions, variable depending on the subject.

I realise that asking for a combination of film and developer is like asking for the ideal breakfast, too personal. But I would like to know if there is something wrong with that combination. Thanks a lot.

Marcial

[BetterSense]

Well, TXP 320 is a completely different film than Tri-X 400, for one thing.

What dilutions did you use with your smaller formats? Times? Agitation? I would start there.

[David de Gruyl]

What BetterSense said.

I would try doing a film test. I know, they suck and take a huge amount of time, but it is the only way to get the right numbers for you. Or you could see what the recommended values for TXP320 are.

Also, TXP320 has less range than TX400, or so I have been given to understand.

[theBDT]

I was under the impression that TXP320 is basically a studio film, with such little latitude in the highlights that it is best for controlled-lighting situations. If you want 400-speed LF film suitable for landscape, move to T-Max, or consider another manufacturer (Illford HP5+ is excellent).

Since you are dev'ing in trays sometimes, and shoot landscape, might I suggest some Adox Ortho film—it's lovely in Rodinal, and you can dev it by inspection under a red safelight.

[Mark Sampson]

Despite Kodak's data sheet, (which the previous post paraphrases), Tri-X in sheets (TXP320) works fine outdoors. IF you've tested your exposure and development. The OP's problems, lost details in the shadows and blown-out highlights, are the characteristic effects of underexposure (shadows) and overdevelopment (highlights).
So doing the standard exp/dev test should tell you what you need to get good images.
Without that you're just guessing.

[Kevin Crisp]

I agree completely with Mark. Do the film speed test and stop varying dilutions and agitation techniques from subject to subject. Do a development time test for your normal development. I personally develop this combination in trays with dividers (my version of a slosher) with 10 seconds gentle agitation once a minute at 1:50 dilution. Never had a problem, and with the long development times at that dilution development is quite even.

Tri-x is a very predictable, forgiving film, if you do the testing and don't guess and change multiple variables at once. Many people shy away from using Rodinal with its legendary grain enhancing formula, but if you run controlled tests with the same exposure and subject in HC110 and D76 versus Rodinal 1:50 the difference in grain is actually slight and noticeable with LF only at a greater degree of enlargment than I can presently make in my darkroom.

[Marcial]

I will repeat the film speed and the normal development tests. In the previous test I found that 200 ISO, a 1:50 dilution, 12 min development, and gentle agitation every minute worked fine to me for average contrast scenes. The problem appears when I shoot subjects with deep shadows in bright landscapes. I try to meter the shadows and that is the reason because I cannot understand why they appear so thin in the negative.

But I will follow your advice and will start again from zero. If it is not a problem with the combination of film and developer, I do not mind to start again. Thanks a lot.

Marcial

[BetterSense]

Honestly thin shadows and blocked up highlights just sounds like TXP to me. That film is just all toe. I would switch to TMAX.

[Marcial]

Honestly thin shadows and blocked up highlights just sounds like TXP to me. That film is just all toe. I would switch to TMAX.


Thanks for the suggestion but I like the gradation in the mid tones and I think I will give TXP a chance.

Kevin: Do you think that 12 min in Rodinal 1:50, 20ºC and agitation each minute is an adequate starting point? o perhaps I should start with 14 min at 21ºC, as the massive chart suggest?

Marcial

[A49]

The problem appears when I shoot subjects with deep shadows in bright landscapes. I try to meter the shadows and that is the reason because I cannot understand why they appear so thin in the negative.

You should think about using Rodinal more diluted for such high contrast scenes. Something about 1+100 or 1+150. Combined with only that much agagiton as its needed the longer time would give the shadows a chance to get more thick and the developer should exhaust to more extend in the (formerly blocked) highlights and therefore would compensate contrast more in this region. A rough starting point for developing high contrast scenes using 1+100 Rodinal is multiplying the 1+50 time by 2 and with 1+150 Rodinal by 3. As you have development times about 20 to 30 minutes then, you could try to agitate your tray? each 5 or 6 minutes only. If the skies or or continious tone areas in the negative still appear smooth, you could even agitate only each 8 or 10 minutes.

If the shadows are still to thin then, there is no other way as shooting at even a lower speed.

Best,
Andreas

P.S. Do testing this first, the method could need more or less adjustment before everything is fine.

[Kevin Crisp]

I just went out to the darkroom and checked my notes. Two 4x5 sheets in an 8x10 tray, with a divider, 1:50 with agitation for 10 seconds every minute, I got 11.75 minutes at 68F/20C. I am exposing it at 320 which works for my meter (Zone VI Pentax) with testing with a calibrated densitometer. With your meter you may get a different number - or not. (This is why I cringe when people on this forum ask 'what do you expose _____ film for?'.)

There is a Kodak publication on line for Tmax 100 (F-406 or something like that). The agitation technique involved lifting the right side of the tray gently, then the front, then the left, then the front, etc. That technique gave me very even development when I tried it for tmax so that is how I agitate everything. Do that for 10 seconds.

So yes, the 14 minute time on the chart does seem long to me at a higher temperature.

Good luck.