Tri-X Developer for tonality

[._._z]

Ditto.

 

More than that, APX + Rodinal in medium format yields the nicest tonality -- rich and

crunchy -- for studio portraits and for urban landscapes. Great combo.

[don_mckeith]

Z- I gotta agree with you on the APX-

 

I use it when I want grain-I shoot 35mm,develop in rodinal and blow it up to 11X14- I really like that look.

[jay_de_fehr]

"Depends on what you mean by "measurable". Obviously folks like Salgado, Ralph Gibson, etc. find Rodinal suitably impressive for what they do with tri-x, and some of the characteristics they value it for could arguably be measured."

 

Like which ones? Graininess is measurable, so I suppose that if you like grain, Rodinal might be a good choice, but there are other developers that will give similar grain without the loss of film speed. All developer formulae represent a compromise among the competing characteristics of film speed, sharpness, and grain. Rodinal sacrifices film speed and grain for sharpness. Other developers are sharper than Rodinal, give finer grain, and full emulsion speed. If you like grain, and Rodinal is sharp enough, then you're only sacrificing emulsion speed. Of course, if you like the "tonality", then no sacrifice is too great. I didn't mean to suggest that one must use the best developer available to get the results that one wants anymore than I would suggest that those same results could not be had by using a number of other developers. If Rodinal is giving you the results that you want, there is no reason to change to another developer, and there is no reason to believe that there aren't better developers available.

 

Jay

[sam_elkind1]

Mike--

 

As long as you have Xtol and Rodinal on hand, try this for the Tri-X at E.I. 200, to combat the Xtol muddiness some have referred to (assuming a 500mL mix):

 

--100 mL water

--400 mL Xtol stock

--4 mL Rodinal.

 

Start your testing with about 9 minutes at 75 F.

--Sam Elkind

[jim_russell2]

Would not that be 100ml Xtol and 400ml water.

[sam_elkind1]

Jim is right. Excuse my typo: --100 mL Xtol, --400 mL water, -- 4mL Rodinal. Good catch Jim.

 

--Sam

[roger_hicks1]

Jay,

 

I'm right with you. Tonality is the ONLY reason I can see to use Rodinal. Well, that and it's long lived. The vast majority of decent modern developers will give more speed or finer grain or better acutance and some will give two or even three of these desirable characteristics.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[jim_appleyard]

Ahh, but Roger, isn't tonality enough of a reason?

 

And don't forget the other reasons to use Rodinal: cost, convenience and it's ability to strip that purple color crap out of my film.

 

Speed, no problem, I usually shoot with a tripod.

 

Grain, again, no problem. I shoot medium format slow films like APX 100 and my ever-shrinking supply of APX 25. When that's gone I'll go to Efke; not much 35 these days.

 

Acutance? Well I'd be hard-pressed to tell what developer did what print when held side by side.

 

That's just my way of shooting and you are correct about Rodinal and its faults. I also use pyro, divided devs., and some silver-solvent devs. But, as we all know, there is no perfect dev., just ones that get us close to where we want to go with an image. I find Rodinal a good way to go with a lot of my work. Other folks shoot differently and that's why there are many other kinds of devs out there.

 

I enjoy the articles, keep writing them.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> Ahh, but Roger, isn't tonality enough of a reason?

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Anyone who says no should be made to use Tmax souped in Tmax for a year.

[lex_jenkins]

Interesting that HC-110 falls into the middle of the pack in terms of the three criteria listed on Jay's chart.

 

That's long been my mere impression of how Tri-X and HC-110 interact.

 

Good enough reason for me to continue using it.

[jay_de_fehr]

Just about any film developer combination is capable of good tonality, even Tmax/Tmax.

 

Jay<div></div>

[._._z]

Those who are punished and don't realize it are the worst off of all.

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Jim,

 

More than enough reason. But the only important one!

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[jay_de_fehr]

.[. Z ,

 

you are as eloquent as you are astute.

 

Jay

[._._z]

I think Scott E. had it right the other day when he said, "If I want the 'Tmax look' I'll

shoot Tri-X and under-expose. Some of the images I see posted on photo.net from the

TMX films shot under over-cast skies are the most tonally wretched images I've ever

seen."

[jay_de_fehr]

Many people have trouble with TMX, and I think that Scott is one of them. I like it.

 

Jay<div></div>

[._._z]

You're just proving my point.

[jay_de_fehr]

You have a point?

[._._z]

A few, none of which you apparently get.

[davecollopy]

Not sure what you specifically mean by tonality and I rarely use 35mm but for what it's worth I'll share my experience using 120 TriX. I've noticed a significant increase in seperation of midtones using Xtol, single roll in a double reel tank, filled to half way mark and applying increased agitation.

[jay_de_fehr]

Thank you, Dave, for making my point. None of us are exactly sure what is specifically meant by "tonality", which is what makes it so useful for extolling the virtues of a pet developer, or criticizing the work of another photographer, and so useless in making informed decisions about the working characteristics of our materials.

 

Jay

[._._z]

I just came across a thread from last year called "Why Rodinal?" and I see that Jay trolled

that thread good, laying down a tangential "Use XTOL" post like a dog's log on a

sidewalk. Not surprising, I suppose.

[jim_appleyard]

That should be "trolled that thread WELL".

[jay_de_fehr]

.[. Z,

 

I'm glad that I inspired you to do some homework. I hope that you learned something.

 

Jay

[._._z]

Jim, he trolled that thread but good -- a lesson to remember for the future whenever he

blows his one-note horn.