Processing Tri-X for scanning?

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by gerry_szarek, Jan 25, 2005.

  1. A different take on what should I process my 400 rated Tri-X in.

    I am planning on scanning the negatives (35mm) then printing them
    using a HP9760 (8 color with B&W / grey cartridge). Developed using
    a Jobo CPP2, the scanner is a HP20 (soon to be upgraded to a Minolta
    5400).

    From what I have read/heard leaning toward XTOL, or D-76. Your
    opinions please, I am looking to hear from users that scan instead
    of using an enlarger.

    Thanks,
    Gerry
     
  2. I have had terrible luck with scanning Tri-X souped in D-76. I've had great success with it souped in Diafine. However, the results are often a little too soft for my taste.

    Many will say differently, but I've also had great scanning results dev'ing most films I use in PMK.
     
  3. I don't think I've had "bad" results from scanning TXT at all. I mean, scanning does accentuate grain, and it'll have problems if the contrast is too high, but if you account for those you can get pretty nice scans. But I don't think you can expect miracles from it either - TXT is rather grainy compared to other films, after all. I generally use fairly conservative development times to keep contrast down. My next phase is to mess with straight ID-11 vs 1:1, to see if the reduced grain/sharpness vs. increased grain/sharpness is compellingly different when scanned. I've attached an admittedly too-large example of TXT, shot at 250, developed for 7:30 in ID-11 1+1. I have heard that XTOL can be a bit finer-grained than D76/ID-11. Of course, if you don't mind the loss in speed, you could use perceptol or microdol to really get fine grain. allan
    00AuDp-21547284.jpg
     
  4. </center>I scan all my Tri-X negs, sometimes on a Minolta 5400 and other times on an Epson 4180 flatbed. I develop 'normally' in Rodinal 1:50 or HC-110 dil B. I find grain (from scanning) is less pronounced if I scan the images as positives, then invert them in Photoshop. Better (e.g. flatter) contrast range too. It keeps the highlights from losing detail.
     
  5. Dear Gerry,

    I scan using a Minolta Dimage Dual III and I find I get less grain aliasing with undiluted Xtol than with Xtol 1:1. Your mileage may vary.<g>

    Neal Wyrdra
     
  6. Tri x scans just fine with my 5400. Develope for a condenser enlarger. That is full strength at 5.75 min at 68deg. If you overdevelope, you have the same problem as in the darkroom.
     
  7. I don't know this first hand, but would Microdol 1:3 make sense with a view towards scanning? It results in fine grain, good apparent sharpness, and is soft working so as to not blow out highlights. Any opinions or experience?
     
  8. Re Microdol-X at 1:3 dilution with Tri-X, develop it at 75 degrees for 18 minutes and you will get a gorgeous tonality spread and wonderful sharpness which will make your day! I've been souping it this way for a long time and I love it!
     
  9. A little softness is to be expected; a scanned neg is a digital image and needs unsharp mask just as much as a RAW file from a DSLR does. You just need to be careful that USM doesn't accentuate the grain more than you desire. It's no worse than a condenser enlarger for that.
     
  10. For whatever it's worth, I like Tri-X as well in Diafine at EI 1600 as any other way I've tried it -- and it scans like a champ on my Arcus 1200. Grain isn't noticeably worse than in HC-110 B, process isn't significantly longer, and the extra two stops of film speed is practically always welcome (a suitable neutral density filter will undo that if, for instance, you actually want/need reduced DOF in bright sun). Almost all SLRs can handle EI 1600 in a full range of light; f/16 and 1/1000 isn't significantly overexposed.
     

Share This Page