Massive tri-x inquiry - many questions

[luke_neher]

Okay, I just bought a new roll of trix, that is the bulk, labelled 400tx. As such ALL QUESTIONS APPLY

TO 400tx.

<p>First question has to do with different versions:

I will be looking up stuff about trix a fair bit, what are the versions and what are they called. I need to

know so i can ignore info about them.</p>

<p></p>

<p>Next is: How do you recomend developing this new trix at 400 speed in rodinal, normal. There

seems to be no standard way, so personal recomendations and sample photos are really apreciated.</

P>

<p></p>

<p>Now, what about at other speeds up to 3200. I like to use ddx because i also have plus-x and they

are a beautiful combo, but i am open to other suggestions. So if you guys have any suggestions, do go

ahead, also, i would love it if you could tell me what these different development methods do, ie. more

contrast, less, more grain, etc.</P>

<p></p>

<p>Finally, if you have any recomendations about exposing it with these different combos, I would

really love to hear.</p>

THanks heaps, Luke.

[leslie_cheung]

Geez Luke, you spat out your HCB street mantra over at the S&D forum but you don't know

how to develop a roll of Tri-X ;D

 

Usually, I soup xtol 1:2 and at times, diafine only @1200/1600. I would not use rodinal if

you shoot tri-x @400 unless you like grains.

[luke_neher]

Yeah i realise ill get some serious grain, but rodinal is all i gots at the moment and i gotta

at least finish it.

[Rob F.]

Rodinal keeps pretty well, so I wouldn't rush to finish it up on films you are pushing to 3200! That's not what Rodinal is for. I use Microphen for this purpose, but I understand DDX is pretty similar, and since you have been using that, maybe you should just continue.

[leslie_cheung]

I would start rodinal 1:50 for 12-13mins at 20C. Depending on the contrast, I would adjust

agitation/time/or temp. Some people dilute 1:100 or even 1:200 but too long for my taste.

[gene_e._mccluney]

Rodinal in concentrate form keeps very, very well. You don't "have" to finish it on your

new Tri-X just because you have it. It is really not a recommended developer to extract

the best from Tri-X. Unless you like massive grain.

[luke_neher]

thanks for info! maybe ill use it selectively, and just buy some ddx now, expensive sh*t

though.

[gaius1]

If money's an issue, buy HC110 and develop in dilution H, 1+63. This developer works well with Tri-X.

[gnashings]

I love TriX and Acufine. Something I would suggest you try.

[john bode]

I don't quite have my process down yet, but here's my experience for what it's worth. I

don't have a conventional enlarger; I scan my negs directly with a Canon FS4000 film

scanner and process the image in Gimp. I think my images suffer from grain aliasing a bit

when I scan at 4000 dpi, and I don't think they'll appear as grainy in a conventional print,

but I have no way to confirm that.

<p>

So far I've had the best results with a 1:45 dilution for ~15:30 at 66 deg F, initial agitation

of 30 seconds followed by 3 inversions every 30 seconds. Good density, scanned well,

grain wasn't hugely obnoxious. Here's an example from the last roll:

<p>

<a href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/153/339149523_7e3e3ccef4_b.jpg">Coach

interview</a>

<p>

I've heard from others that keeping the temperature at 68 or below helps keep the grain

from blowing up; I haven't tested that systematically, but based on that last roll I'd say

there's a germ of truth there.

<p>

I've tried pushing two rolls to 1600 with mixed results. The first time I used a 1:50

dilution for about 30 minutes at 68 deg F, and wound up with very thin negs with no

shadow detail at all. I had to do some extensive postprocessing to get a usable image:

<p>

<a href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/129/330590910_2eab7c7faf_b.jpg">In the

booth</a>

<p>

The second time I tried a stand development technique, using a 1:225 dilution and letting

it sit for 5 hours, with 1 minute initial agitation and 30 seconds agitation at the 2 1/2 hour

mark:

<p>

<a href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/138/335952424_1bfedca2a3_b.jpg">Front

porch</a>

<p>

Density was better, although I still lost a lot of shadow detail, and had to enhance the

contrast a bit. Grain was pretty obnoxious, but after applying a selective gaussian blur,

the result was interesting.

[gnashings]

The grain is not really an issue, its the way scanning makes it look that just... well, looks wrong. I have heard opinions that developing at really cold temperatures with constant agitation has been known to give very fine grain, but I have never tried it myself and therefore can't vouch for it.

[joe_s6]

I really don't believe the Rodinal+Tri-X=grain argument. Here is a scan from a print using that same combination. I like it just fine, and really don't see any grain to speak of. Had more grain from D-76 when using that years ago.

 

HC-110 will give a "softer" look to Tri-X, not as "sharp" as Rodinal. So don't waste your money there, unless that's what you're wanting.<div></div>