New Tri-X and HC110 different times in 35mm and 120

When the new Tri-X first came out, the word on the internet was basically disregard

the new short times for HC-110 dilution B and just use your old times. People were

reporting no differences.

I tried this with my first roll of new Tri-X in 120 format and got overly dense

negatives. I did some experimentation and came up with a dilution of 1:50 for 6

minutes. I've been using this for months and my negs have been coming out great.

Very easy to print and nice tonality. Better I think than the old Tri-X.

However I just developed my first roll of new Tri-X in 35mm and used the same

dilution (1:50) and time (6 minutes) and got very thin results leading me to believe

that my old dilution

and times (1:31 and 7 minutes) is much closer to correct for me for Tri-X in 35mm.

Has anyone had similiar experiences? I used to be able to use the same dilutions and

times for both formats and get very similar results.

Questions about new Tri-X processing time, and possible error in the Kodak instruction, come up a lot. I've not used Tri-X of late, so have no pressing reason to know the answer, but it begs the question:

Why not just ask Kodak?

I emailed them a year or two back, with a question about fixers, and within 24 hours was on the phone with a Kodak rep., calling from Eastern Canada (I'm on the west coast of Canada).

It is a bit of head shaker, though, why Kodak just doensn't ammend their publication, and post any revision to their website at least (if they haven't already).

Mike:

What 'way of business' is that?

1. Shoot self in foot.

2. Examine foot for damage.

3. If foot is insufficiently damaged, shoot again.

4. Hand gun to opponent and point out other areas in foot that are suitable for receiving bullets.

Which new tri-X , 320 or 400, are we discussing?

Inquiring minds and all that...

400.

I've never shot the 320. My impression is that it's a different film altogether and made

for studio work.

I've been using the new Tri-X 120 400 with PMK Pyro, and it seems that about 10% less development is appropriate. Not sure if 10% less is effectively what you're doing with 1:50 HC-110 and 6 minutes, but could be.

Anyway, to get to your point about 35mm vs. 120: All else being equal, I always found that 35mm Tri-X 400 and 120 Tri-X 400 behaved differently. For me, same developer, same temp, same time, same exposure, 35mm was denser than 120; in other words, a faster film. So when I shot 35mm (rarely), I adjusted accordingly. I guess I say all this to say that it doesn't surprise me that the new Tri-X 400 would show differences between 35mm and 120, regardless of which way the difference shows up for you.

Paul