Tri-X Development

If you've been around for awhile you know what Tri-X is. About 25 years ago I was only doing B+W with the original Tri-X, I bought 20 or so 100ft rolls from a newspaper in Boston, Cheap, put them in the freezer as soon as they arrived. Sold a few on ebay for 40-50 bucks a roll, I have one left.

 

For Development I used Xtol, have been away for 15 years, but have a lot of film to develop, film cans are marked, anywhere from 320-3200, mostly at 400-800, but I have a bag that has about 50 cans unmarked,

 

I have no Ideal what I exposed them at or the best develop method to get the best negs, I was looking looking at 800 , but shit, I know some of these are of the Packers, Bears, Cards, Many big name bands. Don't want to loose them.

 

Developing Tri-X no problem, but if I don't know the ISO they was exposed at, what is the happy medium? 800?

 

I can do magic in the darkroom, but if anyone has experience with developing Tri-X with unknown exposure let me know.

 

BTW, this isn't the latest tri-x, this is the old school shit that was used before the C41 process, hence me buying it from a newspaper 25 years ago..

 

Looking for advice on developing this in order to salvage as much as I can, I'm fine in the darkroom, but want to get my best neg that I can work with.

A few years ago, I had a bunch of old B&W film that had "best before" 1990 dates. Some of it had been frozen, but others had simply been in the back of the cabinet.

 

Surprisingly to me, the film that showed the greatest effects from age were the Plus-X rolls. I the 20+-year-old Tri-X at ISO 400 and ended up developing as per original instructions with no compensation.

 

Here is a 1974 Tri-X film shot and developed in 2015.

You may want to look into using a divided developer. this will neither push nor pull the film, but it may be a happy medium seeing as you don't know what EI you used. If you're off by one stop, that may not be too critical.

 

You can mix your own from scratch and I would recommend Thrionton's Two Bath. The Formulary sells a D-76 two bath. Try one roll and see what happens.

Surprisingly to me, the film that showed the greatest effects from age were the Plus-X rolls.

 

I've watched my always frozen 2012 ex. Plus-X increase in base fog and grain over the last ~3 years. I can only see it when looking at film developed 3 years ago side-by-side recent, but it's still there.

 

I recently acquired a fair bit of 120 Plus-X. Some of it is 2008 ex. and some a bit new(maybe 2012)...I haven't developed any yet, but I'll see.

A few years ago, I had a bunch of old B&W film that had "best before" 1990 dates. Some of it had been frozen, but others had simply been in the back of the cabinet.

 

Surprisingly to me, the film that showed the greatest effects from age were the Plus-X rolls. I the 20+-year-old Tri-X at ISO 400 and ended up developing as per original instructions with no compensation.

 

Here is a 1974 Tri-X film shot and developed in 2015.

[ATTACH=full]1244378[/ATTACH]

 

 

Thanks, I thought about 400 all the way, but pushed this pretty hard at times, and I just checked the canister in the freezer and it's from 1982. I remember this film being the staple of the Vietnam war, photographers would be developing this in tents in the Jungle and would produce very acceptable results. And yes half of my stash has been frozen for years and half in the back of the cabinet..

 

Thanks for everything, it is an experiment.

You may want to look into using a divided developer. this will neither push nor pull the film, but it may be a happy medium seeing as you don't know what EI you used. If you're off by one stop, that may not be too critical.

 

You can mix your own from scratch and I would recommend Thrionton's Two Bath. The Formulary sells a D-76 two bath. Try one roll and see what happens.

I agree, experimentation is key, I will try this method, really hope I don't pick the wrong canister to test with.

 

Thanks for your reply

I've watched my always frozen 2012 ex. Plus-X increase in base fog and grain over the last ~3 years. I can only see it when looking at film developed 3 years ago side-by-side recent, but it's still there.

 

I recently acquired a fair bit of 120 Plus-X. Some of it is 2008 ex. and some a bit new(maybe 2012)...I haven't developed any yet, but I'll see.

Yeah, this stuff is older, probably from the 80's , I think if it sees no light and a cool place it'll last for another 50 years, at least the unexposed cannister. This was one tough film in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

 

Thanks to everyone for all your suggestions, it may take me several weeks to try them all out, thank you.

Most often, my favorite for Tri-X is Diafine, though maybe not when it is over 30 years old.

 

For older film, I like HC-110. There are times for EI 800 and 1600, though you should know that is what it was exposed for.

Perhaps try stand development with a very dilute developer? I've got little experience with it, so no real results to share. Rodinal seems the typical recommended developer to try it with (1:100 for 1 hour, with only some agitation at the start and maybe a whirl at 30 min.), but no idea if this increases any risk of fogging or not. Anyway, just to share the idea - hopefully more experienced people can give more detail on it.

I'd stay far away from standard deveolper like D76, ID 11 or (in particular) Rodinal

While D76 and ID11 are basically the standard developers for 'normal' (i.e. at ISO 400) exposed Trix X, they need a lot of extra work (adjustment in the deleping times) to end up with decent negatives from underexposed (anything over ISO 400) shots

 

Rodinal on the other hand is prone to produce very contrasty, and not to forget grainy images, the latter nice if that's the effect your after (eg great with TMZ 3200 used at ISO 4000 but a bit of a pain for 'normal' results

The '1:100 for one hour with little agitation' in my experience is a process better in its place for very much/heavily underexposed (like ISO 1600 and over) Tri-X, in my Tri-X/Film shooting days know as FF-DD technique, have used it myself only a very few times as an ultimate last resort solution

 

My 'standard' developer for more or less (640 to 1200 ISO) pushed film was Microdol X, diluted 1:3, 14 minutes with 5 seconds per minute mild agitation (tipping over my Paterson developing tanks over a couple of times)

If underdeveloped the results giving negatives still be contrasty enough to be printable on Multigrade (highest contrast setting, developed in Tetenal Eukobrom to still get as dark blacks as possible), if overdeveloped negatives with admittedly a higher density, but still printable on Multigrade on lower contrast setting using longer printing times

For (known beforehand) heavily under exposed films I preferred Acufine Acu-1 or Diafine developer

Neither development time, nor setting silly numbers on an exposure meter change the speed of a film in any noticeable way.

 

What's printed on the box is very much what you get. Changing the development time only varies contrast. This is sensitometry 101.

 

Develop it 'normally', otherwise you'll just get unprintable density or have to use a hard paper grade. The shadow detail will be lacking in those films you've 'pushed', but it wouldn't be there in any event.

 

Microphen developer will gain you a genuine half stop. So that's what I'd recommend using.

Sorry Joe, have to disagree with you on this one. In my newspaper film days I exposed Tri-X at 1600 and developed it in Acufine diluted 1:1 with very good results. Sure a bit grainy if I cropped it too hard but that is 35mm any time. Still, density was just fine, shadow detail and highlights all useable. Polycontrast and Polymax paper printed out fine and I can't remember the name of the paper we used for quick print out results that tended to be a bit flat in contrast. It used an activator and a stabilizer in a processor that spit out prints in less than 30 seconds. They were damp and smelled bad but worked.

 

Rick H.

Yeah, Acufine is great if you want to push. The longer you left it in the soup, the higher you could go with an EI.

I did work at a paper once where the long time guy shot it at 400 and souped it in straight Acufine for 2 minutes just to get it done. Looked like sh!t and he never was allowed to develop anything of mine.

 

Rick H.

The standard way to develop a film when you didn't know the development time was to do a clip test. In the dark, you cut off the first five or six frames, develop them at your best guess at the dev time and see how they come out. If they were okay, you develop the rest of the film for the same time. If they were too, thin/heavy/contrasty/flat, you altered the dev time accordingly. A standard, commonly used technique. All pro labs would offer that as a service.

 

Alan