Diafine plus new Tri-x

hello, just checking on the new Tri-x. used the older version back in

the 80s and 90s. Getting back into it. heard all kinds of things, some

contradictory. 1- is it finer grained then then old tri-x and by

roughly how much...say better then old tri-x but not as much as t-max...

and diafine...heard old tri-x was usually rated at 1600...heard new

tri-x should be rated lower...just curious as to what new tri-x

/diafine users have been rating their combos...i'm talking about the

35mm version...

 

Thanks.

1200/1250 should do just fine, I used the same for the "old" version as well. Grain is slightly finer with the new emulsion, but far from TMX...

 

A search within photo.net should yield a couple of answers to your questions.

Grain is a hard thing to describe in this case. I'd say that the "new" Tri-X is a bit finer than the older version, but it is still Tri-X. It's difficult to compare with Tmax 400 because the grain stuctures are different. In no way is it as fine grained as TMax 100. Behavior in Diafine is about the same as for the old version. EI of 1600 is optimistic for either version of this film, but works if the lighting is really flat. In light where you have distinct shadows, you are a bit better off rating the film at 1250.

My experiences with the new Tri-X (but not with Diafine) indicate that there is no practical difference. It is possible that the grain looks slightly different because Kodak is using a new factory to produce the film. The new emulsion responds identically to me in PMK to the old version, and PMK is a pretty touchy developer. I plan to treat the new Tri-X as the old until I see a reason to do differently.

The only difference I see between old and new Tri-X is the film base. The old base invariably dried to a neutral gray. The new base sometimes dries to a slightly bluish/purplish color - it depends on the developer and fixer used. Otherwise the film seems to behave the same as it has for years.

 

Here's one of my folders with nothing but images on Tri-X at EI 1250 developed in Diafine. Some are 35mm, others 120. Some are scans of prints, others scans of negatives.

 

I settled on EI 1250 after trying everything from 400-1600. With Tri-X in Diafine, shooting slower than 1250 didn't offer any particular benefits, at least not for my tastes. Shooting faster began losing more shadow detail than I was willing to part with.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=304508

Lex, is this a good combo shooting against the light? Does it hold shadow detail well, and allow some recovery of highlight details?

 

Thank you :-)

Mani, Diafine is a compensating developer and is excellent for minimizing the risk of blown highlights. This makes it a good choice for shooting in contrasty situations.

 

One of Diafine's weaknesses is that it can produce flat results under flat lighting - extended development will not increase contrast on the negatives.

 

As for shadow detail, it depends on exposure. At 1250 I'm sacrificing some shadow detail in exchange for being able to use faster shutter speeds or shoot in dimmer light. I like Diafine for when I know I'm going to be using Tri-X all day and in all kinds of lighting. It improves my chances of getting more usable shots.

 

At between 400-1000 there's more shadow detail but the negatives become flatter and grayer overall, lacking snap even under contrasty lighting. It's better to choose another developer for such situations.

I feel the Diafine/TX combo shines in street (and atificial light stage) with a handheld cmera.

Lex, if you're still following this post, what have you come up with an agitation pattern in Diafine "B" that maximizes the compensating effects of the stand-type development, but doesn't result in bromide-like streaking?

 

I did a roll last night using very very minmal agtiation and got mild streaks/uneven development corresponding with sprocket holes.

Andre, I agitate the film in Part B *very* gently once or twice at one minute intervals. I don't completely invert the tank - I just tip it about 90 degrees to one side, then the other.

 

I've tested stand development - no agitation other than one or two initial agitations - in Part B using a stainless tank/reel and saw no problems on my negatives. I wouldn't do this with a plastic tank/reel system tho'.

 

I'm not this careful about agitation in Part A because I don't believe it's necessary.

My agitation in B was much gentler than you described, and the streaking is only somewhat mild, so the situation seems hopeful and I'll try another roll today to see if I can get better results along your lines.

 

PS, discouragingly, my negs also 'looked' very contrasty despite this near 'stand' development????

 

Admittedly, I haven't had a chance to attempt a print from them, but avoiding blown highlights is supposedly one of the sales points for using this Diafine developer.

Andre, I'm really surprised to hear that you're seeing too-contrasty negatives from a film like Tri-X in Diafine. I'd like to hear your opinion after you've printed a few frames.