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.