Best developer for Tri-X?

I am a confirmed Tri-X user for studio B&W portraits with tungsten lighting. I have been using D-76 for years with fine grain results even on 11X14 enlargements from 35mm film. I think this is due in part to strict temperature controls during all phases of developement, from pre wash through foto flow rinse with distilled water. I rarely get even minor flaws or water spots on the negatives. Now my question: Are there any other developers that will deliver better grain or tones than D-76? I do only head shots and portraits so the skin tones are most important to me. Also, any preferences on RC papers for the above uses? Thanks, GA

Microdol-X will deliver better grain, but the price is a bit steep:

some effective speed loss, some sharpness loss, "flat" negs requiring

harder VC filtering to get punchy prints... And when I used it, it

seemed to somehow attract far more crud than usual to the negatives

(undissolved chemical grains, hairs, dust, other sludge) even though

I followed all my usual procedures. One of the ways MicX improves

grain is by dissolving the individual grains, which unfortuantely

also starts to compromise sharpness...

 

<p>

 

Overall, I have always been very happy with D-76 1:1. I'm now in the

process of trying out XTOL, since so many people are raving about it,

but I haven't tried it with Tri-X yet. (Actually, I'm trying it with

the 100-speed films that I shoot in my Minox. In Minoxery, finding a

developer that reduces grain without compromising other positive

attributes is akin to the search for the holy grail!)

 

<p>

 

BTW, I NEVER would have guessed DK-50! We (my parents have been pros

for over 50 years) use it for sheet film (Ektapan, PXP, TX), but I

always considered it a harsh, fast-working developer that only

delivered average grain - fine for large format, but not a good

choice for smaller formats.

 

<p>

 

In terms of RC paper, I've been using Luminos Flexicon almost

exclusively for several years. I think it's wonderful stuff, and very

reasonably priced.

I use 2 developers with TX. For ISO 200 - 320 rating I use PMK which

gives me an unique tonality and sharpness with moderate grain. For

push processing T-Max developer is the best for me. I used to be

dedicated ID - 11 user ( almost the same as D-76). Used 1:1 it gives

acceptable combination of grain sharpness and tone range, but to my

taste PMK is far better.

E.

I used Perceptol with Tri-X and it gives finer grain than D76. It

gives a beautiful tonal scale too, I can imagine for skintones also.

The reason I do not work with this combination anymore is that the ASA

drops to about 160 ASA. In that case I can find other films with less

grain than Tri-X.

Hummm... you ought to try Kodak X-tol. It sure delivers fine, fine

grain and produces great results, specially for landscapes!!

Dario, Portugal

Lot, what do you mean the iso of tri-x drops to 160 when you develop

with perceptol?

Greg, some developers are good in enhancing sensitivity/speed, some

are good in fine grain, others are good in sharpness, etc. Mostly

developers who are good for pushing, are not good for fine grain

(Microphen, Promicrol, HC110). For fine grain developers it is the

other way around. Perceptol is a fine grain developer, but it just

does not get all the speed out of a film. If you test your

Tri-X/Perceptol according to zone-system criteria you will find that

you will get a reasonable tonal scale in pictures exposed at 160 ASA.

Micheal:

 

<p>

 

Have you tried Tech Pan with Ethol TEC for minox photography? E.I. of 100 and fantastic grain and sharpness. I found out about TEC with Tech Pan from an article on subminiature photography.

I always liked Edwal FG-7 for Tri-x and Plus-x. The 1:15 dilution

with sodium sulfite gives fine grain, long scale, and nice "full"

negative.

With Tri-x I have long been a fan of Microdol-X diluted 1:3. However

I rate the Tri-X at 200 when using this developer method. My

development time is 10-1/2 minutes at 75 F (24 C). I recently

experimented with Tri-X at 200 in Xtol 1:2 and found the results very

pleasing. As I have learned, however, we choose our favorites based

on subjective criteria. You will have to test it to see.

--Sam