Dissatisfied with TRI-X 400

I have tried Tri-x for some time now and I find that the shadows are

to dark and murkie. I have tried dev in several soups and yet the

same. Is this a norm with this film?<div></div>

I'm not sure what you're looking for, because the image you display doesn't really show a big problem. If your not getting shadow detail with Tri-X, maybe you're exposing it in too contrasty of light. But you should bele to get a very nice tonal range.

Difficult to say without knowing how you metered, rated your roll, etc.<br>I don't see a problem with shadows. It looks like you shoot under a very flat light, hence a lot of grey.<br>

Mayve you've overexposed and pulled too much ?

Try shooting it at ISO 320 and developing normally. I use Aculux 2, 10 minutes @ 20C, 4 inversions in 10 seconds every minute. If you search the archive you'll find instructions for shooting at ISO 200 and developing in Rodinal, which some folk swear by.

The example you post doesn't display a problem- in fact it hardly shows any shadows. Can you please try again.

Nice photo of a low contrast scene.

 

If this was full sun, you need to develope the film longer so you can print longer and still keep the flowers white. Longer development will make the highlights more dense without darkening the shadows. Therefore the dark tones will be darker in the print. Do not change film speed.

Sometimes it's important for photographers to be aware of light.

In comparison to what? It would be good for you to post both a photo showing no problem and a photo showing a _serious_ problem. Like one is on Plus-X, and the other is on Tri-X.

It's just a little flat - try an additional 10 percent on the development time. I rate 400TX at 160 ASA and dev in Rodinal, 1:50, 20 C, 8 minutes.<div></div>

Try more agitation to improve contrast

not to be a troll, but it looks like tri-x to me. what do you want it to do?

A little filtration may have spiced up the flat contrast too!

Ron,<p>

Check out John Sexton's work as he uses Tri-X and Tmax a lot. Granted it's larger

format than 35mm, but the results he gets blow me away and give me the

encouragement to keep trying! <p>

Check out Kodak ProPass Vol. 5 - the latest for more info<p>

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/member/ProPass/magazine/V505/

sexton.jhtml?id=0.2.14.10.358&lc=en <p>

If you want a bit better separation of shadows, use HP+.

If the shadows are too thin at the recommended meter reading, try using the next lower ISO/ASA number, this will usually do the trick, repeat if and/or as necessary until you get negatives of an ideal density for printing on your enlarger and choice of paper.

There is nothing worse than trying to print an underexposed negative.

I forgot to mention that you should also adjust the recommended developing time given by the manufacturer if the film is too flat or contrasty for the type of subjects that you generally like to photograph when printing on to your normal grade of paper.

The shot above was high noon bright sunlight. I metered for 400asa and developed for 8min. at 20c. in a jobo processor at the "F" setting "film".........the soup was Rodinol 50:1 ....... I will shoot again and meter for asa 200 (one stop) and try the soup with a bit more agitation and increase the time to 11 min. then I will be abel to judge what to do after that. Thanks for your expert advise.<div></div>

OOps!<div></div>

Try HP5+ at 400 and ID-11 for 11@68.

 

I just tried this and have been very pleased.

Just my little contribution...

I hope the picture will not be too big, it's the first time i post a picture...

 

i've tried tri-x this summer, and i'm still judging

 

This shot was made near La rochelle, France, some time before the sunset

it's a tri-x 400@400, shot with a nikon 50, 1.8,

souped in d-76, for 5,15 min at 22?,

scanned with a shitty canon 5200f at 600 dpi

 

What do you think about the contrast and the shadows? I can't say if i like it or not...

Ron, I certainly recognise the problem from my own experience. Murkiness is always a danger with green vegetation in B/W, and IMHO Tri-X performs more poorly in this respect than, say, Delta 100. (I'm not too sure why you would choose Tri-X for this subject anyway, but no doubt there was a good reason.) As others have said above, it's the poor separation of mid-tones that causes the murkiness. Increased development will help, but you'll have to burn in those flowers during printing. Filters will also help.

This is actually what I love about Tri X 400. To get a 'greyer' picture, I use TMAX, which gives me a softer picture -- and it's what I'll be using this weekend to take pictures of a friend's soon to be born twins. Alternatively, if I only have tri x and enough light, I filter it down a bit.