Tonal range like Tri-X 320, but finer grain...

[johndc]

Recently, I bought a box of Tri-X Professional (ASA 320) 4x5 because

my store had run out of HP5+. Since I was unfamiliar with this film, I

didn't want to risk overdevelopment, so I used Diafine.

 

As it turns out, this f/d combo yields a beautiful tonal range if you

expose the film at 320. I was quite surprised at this, as my

experience with using fast films in Diafine has taught me to expect

low contrast and a compressed tonality. Regardless, the Tri-X was

definitely a nice change. My only problem is that there is a bit too

much grain for my liking. The considerable acutance of Diafine (one of

its best features, imo) makes the grain even more pronounced.

 

So my question is: is there another film out there that has a tonal

range like Tri-X Pro, but with finer grain? I don't particularly care

about the speed -- I would expect that slower speed would result in

finer grain, and I'm not averse to using slow films at all.

 

I should point out that I am not specific about developer. I'm just

trying to get a feel for what's out there. Thanks!

[paulh]

Hi,

I don't have that much experience with B+W films, but I have just got back a roll of Efke 25 shot in an old 6x9 camera. In the past I have used FP4 and TMAX 400 in 120, and XP2 in 35mm.

 

The Efke, at least to my eyes, gave a wonderful tonal range, and next to no grain (I did not develop the film myself, I had it done via my usual lab). It's worth giving a try, and is quite cheap. There are also ISO 50 and 100 versions.

 

It does apparently have quite a soft emulsion, and it seems to be a bit more curly than the Ilford, but I don't think that should be an issue with sheet film.

 

(I know some people don't like it, but I was pleasantly surprised by it)

[nikos peri]

I agree with the pleasant surprise in Tri X 320. I use it now primarily at 160 in HC110. Developer notwithstanding, perhaps you could try downrating it too.

[bruce watson]

Consider developing in XTOL 1:3. I found better sharpness than HC110 (either dilution B or H), and also finer grain (well, at 10x enlargement it's not much finer, but it's a little more pleasing in shape). The tonality is really nice. I did the standard zone system test and came up with an EI of 400 for XTOL 1:3, and 250 for HC110-H.

 

I suggest this because I suspect that you'll like the results with XTOL better than you do with Diafine.

 

Else, consider FP4+ for a film. It's definitely got your smaller grain, is capable of great sharpness, and many here sing praises to its tonality.

[andrew_hull]

John:

 

Just a suggestion. Since you like the film, why not try a finer grain developer? I always use Microdol-X at 1:3 for 400TX. I don't have experience with 320TX and Microdol, though. For the regular Tri-X, 1:3 yields sharp negatives with unobtrusive grain. An added benefit is that the negative print very easily. Downside is the time developing (but made up for in printing). IIRC there was someone here who was touting 320TX and Rodinal a while back, but that grain might be to large for you, I am not sure.

 

Just a thought.

[johndc]

I was always under the impression that Diafine was considered a fine-grain developer ("dia"- for the two bath process, "fine"- for the fine grain) but perhaps I was mistaken.

 

I have used and love FP4+, in both XTOL and Diafine. It definitely is one of the sharpest and finest grain films I've ever worked with. However, it doesn't seem to have the richness of the Tri-X Pro. I have been shooting it at 125, but perhaps a speed test is in order.

 

I will also try the Efke emulsions. Someone emailed me and mentioned the J&C 200 as well.

 

I'll keep you posted on the results.

[david_goldfarb]

Efke PL100 and FP4+ would be the most likely candidates.

[scott_eaton]

Once you learn to work with TXP's quirks and handle it's shoulder, it's a gorgeous film to work with.

 

Personally I think the film looks like a hybrid between TMY 400 and classic Tri-x, with 1/3 the former and 2/3 the later.

 

Delta 100 (not FP4), Fuji Acros, or TMX 100 are what I would try given all work well with HC110. The reformulated Plus-X Professional also incorporates some Tmax characteristics, but it's grain structure is not that much better than TXP.

[barry_kenstler]

John,

 

I too liked the look of 320 Tri-X in Diafine and, yes, I too was a bit disappointed by the prominence of the grain. I think Diafine also tames the tendency for TXP/TXT to have fairly high highlight contrast. I really was impressed by both the tonality and latitude that combination delivered.

 

I'd classify Diafine as a medium-fine-grain developer. Maybe the fine stands for "fine results with some films", who knows?

 

I was a big user of Diafine until digital started to cut into my film usage. I think it is a great developer with some films, but so-so with many. Of the films I've run through Diafine--there have been many--I'd say Efke 100 delivered tonality most like TXP. By the way, I shot TXP at 500 and Efke at 200 when using Diafine. I was never all that fond of any Ilford film in Diafine, with the exception of Pan F plus.

 

It is often claimed that these Efke films are much like the old Adox films and that they retain many of the characteristics of these lost gems of the past. One of those characteristics is an emulsion that hasn't undergone the modern hardening techniques used by firms like Agfa, Kodak, and Ilford. So if you tray process, I'd exercise additional caution. I'm not trying to scare you, this has just been my experience. Efke 100 in Diafine is a beautiful thing, just be careful.

[lex_jenkins]

FP4+ works well in Diafine at speeds up to 250. It's become one of my favorite combinations for nighttime shooting because of the fine grain compared with Tri-X in Diafine.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=319616

 

And despite the name I don't consider Diafine to be a fine grain developer. Relatively fine, maybe, for a developer often used for push processing. But my results with Tri-X at 1250 in Diafine are coarser than Tri-X at 400 in Rodinal or Tri-X at 1600-3200 in Microphen. Resolution, however, can be very good.

 

Compare these, a full frame and excerpt:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1484193

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1484195

[johndc]

If Pan F+ were available in 4x5, I'd be a very happy fellow. :)

 

Yes, I do tray process my film. However, I've been thinking that I could probably use a Yankee tank with Diafine, since agitation and time aren't as critical. This would probably make it easier for me to work with the Ekfe products.

 

Also, how does Acufine compare to Diafine with respect to acutance and grain?

[skygzr]

Try some Fuji Neopan 400 (I usually shoot it at 200). It's got better grain than Tri-X (IMHO). Alas, like Tri-X, it looks lousy in Diafine. Good ol' D-76 (1:1, about 10 minutes) is the best developer I've found for it so far.

[jay_de_fehr]

If you like the film, but not the grain, why not just use a finer grain developer? QP-TEA is an excellent developer for this film, but if you are averse to making up your developers from raw chemicals, you could try Xtol, which is also an excellent developer for this, and most other films.

[mike_kearney]

Tri-x 320 in DD-x works great