which developer for Tri-X?

[paul a. roid]

hello all,

I mostly use Tri-X at speeds between 400-1600 ISO.<br>

for the slower speeds I have been using Ilford DD-X<br>

and have been very happy with the results. For 1600<br>

I use Diafine - which I love - best results ever!<p>

Now Ilford DD-X is not available... I used Kodak HC-110 (B)<br>

and don't like the tonal range at all (yes, I have experimented<br>

with different settings). Kodak D-76 was ok, but a.) the powder <br>

is a pain to use b.) I don't have much room to store huge<br>

amounts of working solution...<p>

so, what do you guys use or recommend?

[matt miller cambridge, ia]

rodinal

[paul a. roid]

why?

[al_divenuti]

First, there is hope that DD-X will reappear shortly. Ilford has not discontinued the product but is now sub-contracting its manufacture. Expect it to be available again but at a substantial price increase.

 

Assuming you don't like working with powder, I can recommend a couple developers:

 

Edwal FG-7: Good tonal range. Gives pretty good film speed (falls between D-76 and DD-X) and it may be a bit sharper than D-76. The downside is that it's pretty grainy. Very inexpensive, but shelf life of an open bottle is only about 4 months. I used to use this quite a bit with Tri-X. Does nicely for a 1 stop push, not sure about 2 stops (I use DD-X for EI 1600 myself).

 

 

Agfa Rodinal: Different tonality than D-76. Quite sharp and grainy. Film speed is not good and I would not use it for pushing. Terrific shelf life and very inexpensive. I still use this developer, but only for Agfa APX 100.

 

 

Paterson Aculux 2: Haven't used it myself. By reputation it is sharp and relatively fine-grained. Film speed should be about like FG7. It was originally formulated for slower films like Plus-X or FP4+ but it's probably ok with Tri-X. Probably not great for pushing Tri-X. Not sure about shelf life.

 

 

Paterson Acutol: Haven't used it myself. It's similar to Aculux 2 but speed is even better (probably at least as good as DD-X), and should be sharper and a bit grainier. Not sure about pushing behavior or shelf life.

 

I'm assuming you aren't from the USA. If that's true, then you probably can't find FG7. Rodinal is probably easy to find and if you are in the EU it should be possible to find Paterson chemicals without too much trouble.

[matt miller cambridge, ia]

why rodinal? because it's easy to mix, has very long shelf life, delivers all the tonality you can possibly get from tri-x, & is very sharp. sure it's grainy & film speed is a bit slow, but the benefits are sure worth it imo.

[andrew_hull]

Microdol X 1:3 for very beautiful tonality and very easy to print negatives.

Diafine for shots at 1250-1600 that do not look pushed.

Xtol is also good, actually works well 200-1600.

Rodinal is nice and sharp, but doesn't work for pushing.

[titrisol]

There is hope DDX wil be around (I'm saving my last 125 ml to develop that D3200 for the birth of my daughter)

 

I'd use FG7 (Edwal) or D76 as they give good tonality, on the sacrifice of grain. Rodinal gives TX a unique look, very grainy though, but Studional/Rodnal Special could be our nwxt choice.

 

Also there is always Acufine, which is great for pushing TriX

 

And of course Diafine

[nathan_dandar]

Xtol! I'm surprised no one mentioned it. Plus, it's decent for pushing. I use Xtol at 1:1 for Tri-X shot at 1600 regularly.

[al_divenuti]

Yes, there are many good powder-based developers.

 

But the original poster suggested he did not want to deal with powders or have to store large amounts of solution (you gotta mix 5 L of XTOL, after all).

 

As for Diafine and Acufine: Diafine is probably useful in that you don't have to mix powder frequently (you can get lots of mileage out of the two baths) but Acufine could drive him nuts. Also, having looked at a lot of Acufine and Diafine Tri-X shot in normal light - I think it tends to be a bit flat and best used when the film needs to be shot at higher than box speed.

[roman_sonnleitner1]

Calbe A49 (aka Adox ATM 49) - gives very good film speed with almost all films, and that's good if you want to push (I have been using TriX at 1000 for a while, when I ran out of my favorite, Neopan 400); gives very fine grain, and deals well with high-contrast scenes; only downside: apparent sharpness is not that great (though used at 1+1 dilution it is quite acceptable). Cheap, too, and available in packages for 2 x 1 l of working solution (e.g. in Germany from www.fotoimpex.de - your name sounds German...)

 

Roman

[al_divenuti]

I'll also suggest you might want to take a look at Kodak T-max developer, albeit with some reservations.

 

T-Max developer is a liquid concentrate that is probably the closest match for DD-X - at least in concept. Despite what Kodak suggests on its data sheets I characterize it as a fine grain developer. Compared to DD-X it probably has about the same speed and finer grain but is definitely not as sharp. It, like DD-X, is not inexpensive.

 

The big problem with T-Max developer is that it is somewhat tricky to control contrast with. It is very sensitive to temperature and development time variations, does not seem to allow any sort of film to shoulder off, and is susceptible to blowing out highlights. It probably wouldn't be very easy to push a film in this brew.

 

Nevertheless, in the interest of being thorough with respect to widely-available liquid concentrate developers, I feel compelled to include it. I do not doubt that there are those obtaining wonderful and unique results using it.

[klix]

<i>a.) the powder is a pain to use</i>

<p><p>

If this is a show-stopper, then okay, many fine liquid developers have been suggested. But if you're willing to reconsider, I would certainly recommend XTOL.

[enrico__]

HC110 for skin tones. Rodinal for everything else. I think once you have decided a dev then you'll realise that its the least of your issues...

[jay_de_fehr]

PC-TEA. It's a single, concentrated solution, like HC110 or Rodinal,with equivalent shelf life, but it's more energetic, gives better film speed, finer grain, better sharpness and gradation, and it's cheaper. The downside is that you have to make it yourself.

 

Jay

[david_beal___richmond_hts.]

You might want to look at Photographic Formulary's TFX-2, which is available as liquid concentrates: www.photoformulary.com

 

/s/ David Beal ** Memories Preserved Photography, LLC

[jim_appleyard]

Jay, how about your own recipe, DeFehr Rapid was it? IIRC is was a fast, speed increasing dev. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[jay_de_fehr]

Hi Jim. DeFehr Rapid Universal is my current obsession, but I'm still learning about it. Undiluted, it is very fast, with development times between 60 and 110 seconds with the films that I've tested, in a variety of lighting conditions. Of course, it can be diluted for longer development times, but what's the fun in that? A friend has agreed to scan some of my prints, which were also developed in DRU, so I'll post some scans soon. I think that DRU is a fantastic developer for both film and paper, and the more that I use it, the better I like it. As far as I know, only one other person has tried it, and I don't know wether or not he has used it since his test. I shoot TXP @ EI 640 in very low contrast light, with great results, but that's probably a consequence of the expansion development. I'm not convinced that a film's inherent emulsion speed can be increased by any developer, as much as its Effective Speed can be more readily manipulated with some developers than with others. If anyone is interested in this developer, the formula and pertinent info can be found here:

 

http://www.apug.org/forums/article.php?a=94

 

Jay

[User_502260]

Paterson Aculux-2 is a very good developer for Tri-x. It is inexpensive and comes as a liquid concentrate. I would recommend pouring it into two 8 oz. glass bottles when you open it so it lasts longer. Once you open it you can expect it to last only a few months even in the glass bottles. This shouldn't matter too much because it doesn't cost very much and you can tell when it is no longer good by the yellow color. I think this developer offers a very good combination of fine grain, contrast and sharpness.

 

If you like the look of a phenidone type developer then I can certainly recommend Clayton F60. It is also a liquid concentrate. The smallest size is a quart bottle. I would also recommend pouring it into smaller glass bottles. It is normally diluted 1:9 but can be diluted even more. If you like DDX or Microphen you should like F60. This inexpensive developer can be ordered from Freestyle (www.freestylephoto.biz).

 

Edwal FG-7 is a very versatile developer. I find it too grainy for fast (400 or higher) films without using the 9% sodium sulfite solution.

 

NACCO Super-76 is similar in performance to Clayton F60 but it is normally diluted 1:4 so it is not quite as economical. If it is easier for you to find than the Clayton F60 it will also work well. You should also be able to get this at Freestyle.

 

I know that Rodinal has its fans but I find it too grainy for 400 speed films in the 35mm format. It can have a nice look with 400 speed film in medium format sizes.

 

If you are a patient person you might try Paterson FX-50. It can be used several different ways. It also doesn't have a very long shelf life but if you shoot enough film this may not be a problem either.

[jim_appleyard]

Markus, it might have been easier to ask, "What dev. CAN'T you use with Tri-X?"

 

Only one vote for HC-110? Hmmm. Good stuff, liquid, convenient, long lasting in its concentrated form. Same for Rodinal, although comparing the two is like comparing apples & oranges.

 

Guys, how about Sprint chemistry? Don't they make a liquid?

 

Then there's DRU! I'll have to play around with that someday; after I go thru all the other chems I have. Nothing personal Jay, but I should use up the other stuff before it goes bad.

[haziz]

Yes of course Sprint makes a liquid developer. Excellent stuff. I use their recommended time when I shoot Tri-X and HP5. May not however be absolutely the best if you are planning to push Tri-X two stops, though like all phenidone developers it tends to maintain a somehat higher film speed compared to metol/hydroquinone developers.

 

See my posting on it in a recent thread.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B0yq

 

Sincerely,

 

Hany.

[al_divenuti]

I doubt you will find Sprint chemicals outside of N. America.

[silent1]

Try diluting your HC-110. I develop almost everything in HC-110 Dilution G -- 1:119 from syrup or 1:29 from stock solution -- and get great results with TMY and Tri-X, including the full film speed that everyone says HC-110 can't deliver. I develop on the long side, with reduced agitation to control contrast -- 19 minutes for TMY, 23 for Tri-X, with agitation ten seconds every 3rd minute after the full first minute. It's a long time, but it's worth the wait.

[jay_de_fehr]

Jim, the longer you wait to try DRU, the more I'll know about it, so there's no rush. Keep in mind that it is also an excellent paper developer, so if you make some up for paper development, you can try it with film as well. I keep two jugs; one for film, and one for paper. After I've developed my film, I pour the used developer into my paper developer jug, which keeps it replenished and topped up. It's been going strong for about a month and a half now, with no signs of tiring. I just posted my stand development results at Apug, if you're interested.

 

Jay

[jim_appleyard]

Jay, thanks. I'll check over there.

[paul a. roid]

thank you all for the helpful responses - I now have a decent idea

<br>of some of the developers out there<p>

For those who have noticed my name, I'm a native german living<br>

in New York.<p>

 

I will give Paterson Aculux-2 a shot- the description sounds like what <br>

I'm looking for... "very good combination of fine grain, contrast and sharpness."<p>

PC-TEA sounds very interesting if the performance is <i>really</i><br>

as described, then again it sounds worse than powder<p>