Pulling Tri-X

What experience do you have of "pulling" Tri-X? I'm after a developer

and time combo that will give me smaller grain, long range of grays

and deep blacks. I'm out of TMX and have a number of rolls of Tri-X

that I want to spend before I re-stock...

 

// nick

As a rule of thumb I reduce development time by 1/3 per stop downrating. E.g. if the time at 400 ASA were 12 minutes then at 200 ASA the dev time would be 8 mins. I've devved Tri-X rated at 160 ASA in Perceptol 1+1, 20 C for 7 minutes. Normally I use Rodinal (again 160 ASA, 1:50, 20 C, 9 mins) but that will not give fine grain.

hi nick,

just a few days ago i tried an experiment for exactly the same reasons as you. lots of tri-x left!!

i shot a roll rated at iso100 and developed it in ID-11 1:1 for 7 mins

inverting the tank 3 times each minute. i was very pleased with the results and might shoot tri-x that way always except when i need to shoot in low light when i go for iso 1600.

heres one of the shots.

 

paul (melbourne australia)<div></div>

and here's another one for you nick!!<div></div>

Nice things, Paul... Looks pretty much like what I'm after...

Thanks...

 

// Nick

I usually shoot Tri-X around 200 or 250 and develop for about 6

minutes in HC-110 with good results.

 

I'm not fanatical about grain (if I was I'd pick another

film/developer combo) but the tonality is wonderful particularly in

medium format (though it's very nice in 35mm as well).

I actually prefer TX in 120 to TMX. Anyway, here are examples of TX at EI 250, XTOL 1:3 for 10 min (use straight up or 1:1 if you're concerned about grain -- I did 1:3 by mistake, or rather force of habit) It's a bit grainy, though not nearly as grainy as the scans, which are suffering from grain aliasing and compression, but the tones are just lovely. TX at 250 in DD-X is also good.

Argh, that was hideous. Let's try a little larger (how do you guys get decent shrinkage without rescanning anyway?)

<I>It's a bit grainy, though not nearly as grainy as the scans, which are suffering from grain </i><P>Probably because you have a fairly flat neg and are seriously elevating the tonal curve with the scan to get decent midtone contrast. Basically you have the equivelant of a number 5 filter being used in the middle to shadow areas of the image: result = monster grain.<P>Dumb question here, but I thought the idea of pulling Tri-X was to increase tonal compression and keep highlight detail within easily printable range. Why, as according to these examples, would you want to pull Tri-X under overcast skies? My experience would indicate you'd want to go the opposite direction, which is to push to increase contrast in the otherwise compressed midtones? Why pull Tri-X if you are only going to have to defeat the puspose by increasing print filter grade or scan contrast?<P>TMY 400 at stock development and exposure of EI 320 seems like a better solution for Niklas's dilema, but good old D-76 with a 33% reduction in time would do the trick for Tri-X.

I don't think I've ever shot TX 120 at 400, except maybe the first roll some 30 years ago. I usually shoot it at 50-100 ISO and develop in d-76 1-1 6-6.5 minutes (after a 1 minute water presoak). Beautiful! I've wasted far too much time trying other film and developer combos. The only one that - to me!!! - surpasses it tonally is Polaroid 55 p/n.

<i>Why, as according to these examples, would you want to pull Tri-X under overcast skies? My experience would indicate you'd want to go the opposite direction, which is to push to increase contrast in the otherwise compressed midtones? Why pull Tri-X if you are only going to have to defeat the puspose by increasing print filter grade or scan contrast?</i>

<p>

I get your point, and not that long ago I would have agreed, at least in principle (actually I'm still experimenting, so maybe I don't completely disagree either.) However, previous to this I was shooting 400 film at 400 (XP2 in this case, so it's not really a fair comparison) under even more overcast skies and found myself printing with a 1-1.5 on a diffusion head. Different subject, different film, I know. The particular neg in question is certainly not contrasty but neither is it very flat, at least not in the sense of a 5 filter (ISTR more like 2.5-3). In any case, I'm finding myself more and more derating film even under overcast conditions.