TRIX AT 200

[marco_novello]

Hi all

following up to my recent post about grain, I would like to know if it possible

to shoot trix rated at 200 and how I would go with that, developement and so on

thanks again..I am just trying to get get of grainy film

[gaius1]

This question makes no sense. Do you want MORE grain or LESS?

[leicaglow]

Start here: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

 

There are a number of starting formulas for Tri-x at this speed.

[randall ellis]

If you want to get rid of grain you need to use a slower film and a solvent developer. Just be aware that grain is what creates apparent sharpness so if you use a slow film (which has smaller grain) and a solvent developer (which reduces grain) you may end up with negatives that looks soft no matter how far you stop down the lens.

 

- Randy

[marco_novello]

SORRY....Just wanna get rid of grain

[evan_goulet]

Marco, I have shot Tri-X rated down to 50. I have done this when it was the only film I had on me, and the light was particularly contrasty. I meter for ISO 50, then cut %20 development (in D-76 1:1) time per stop pulled. So for a base speed of 400, let's say development time is 10:00. Then at 200, I would develop for 8:00. At 100, I would devlop for about 6:30. Of course, this is what works for me, and your times will vary.<P>This won't necessarily get rid of grain. If you really want to get rid of grain, then perhaps a different film is the correct path.<div></div>

[zachariah_edwardson]

If you want little or no grain, another way is to try the C-41 B+W films, which due to the process, end up being rather grainless as the image is from dye clouds and not grains of silver. They have a unique look and has some advantages (easy development, no grain and good (400) speed) and disadvantages (negs do not last as long, and the kodak film is set to print on color paper, not B+W Paper.)

 

If I do this right, I will attach a photo that I get a lot of print request, that used the Kodak C-41 film. and shows off the lack of grain.<div></div>

[jim_appleyard]

No grain= slower film, fine grain developer,larger format camera. Ideally, all of the above.

 

Exposing Tri-X at 200 isn't necessarily going to give you no/finer grain. There is much more to consider here.

 

Try getting some info out of books like the Ansel Adams series, to name just one.

[ronald_moravec1]

Reduce your development 20 % from your 400 development time. You will get more shadow detail and finer grain from reduced development.

 

Use stock D76 and it will get even finer.

[stephen sullivan]

Marco,

 

If you're going to shoot Tri-X @ 200, but you're still worried about grain... Why not just shoot Plus-X and develope in D-76 1:1 or Xtol 1:1

 

Plus-X @ EI 125 compared to Tri-X @ EI 200 is only 2/3 of a stop slower. Hey, you can always rate Plus-X @ EI 160 and that's only 1/3 of stop slower than Tri-X @ EI 200.

 

Either way, you'll have less grain and a sharper image with Plus-X

[pnance]

A whole lot of people think Tri-X is rated EI 200.

 

That's how I rate it all the time.

[Rob F.]

Marco: I pretty much concur with most of the comments so far. If you really want to get of grain, a slower film like Plus-X or FP-4 is a better idea than shooting Tri-X. You can even push these films to EI 200 if you want, develop in Microphen, and get smooth and rather fine grain.

 

However, if you want to shoot Tri-X and get fine grain, try rating the Tri-X around 250 and develop in Microdol-X used straight. The grain will be finer than with D-76, though the pictures will not be as sharp.

 

You might like to try my "Rob's Micro-76." I mix D-76 and Microdol-X in equal amounts, and dilute 1:1 for use as a one-shot. I suppose you could also call it "D-Dol." The grain is fine; not as fine as in straight Microdol; but sharper, and I like the tonality. Works with FP-4, Delta 100, Tri-X, and HP-5 (so far). Experiment to find your personal development times, but they will be similar to D-76 1:1, or just a bit longer.

[Rob F.]

Er, make that "get rid of grain."

[john carter]

I shoot Tri-X @ 400, develop at 13 minutes HC-110 (H), 30 second agitation at first then two spaced three inversions. These negatives are a little thinner, but let's say I have more rapport with them when they are scanned. At 200 same thing but 10.5 minutes development, and that is slightly more than 20%. So I am in the same camp as Evan.

[graham_powell1]

'Tri-X' is usually either used as a reportage film, or specifically for the beauty of it's grain. Using 'Tri-X' for grainless results is a bit like entering the 'Indie 500' on a motorbike. 'Ilford Pan F Plus' would be far more suitable for your requirements. No matter which way you develop 'Tri-X' it will still produce grainy photographs, this will be lessened by some of the comments above, but you'll never accomplish anything like the results of a slower film like the 'Ilford' mentioned above.

[jmalever]

Rating Tri-X at 200 is overexposing by one stop. Overexposure increases grain, all other things being equal. I agree with the recommendations for another film.

 

Jonas

[fred_obturateur]

Marco follow the basci #1 rule that applies at photo.net : "Thou Shall Listen To What Mr Moravec Said" :-)

Always a good advice there...

 

Basically to get good-looking negs you should rate you films conservatively : a 400 Iso film may be better rated at 320, 250 (my choice) or 200.

I once tried to expose my TRI-X at box rate (400) : the results were ugly...

[sebastian_galbo1]

If you WANT grain use Kodak T-Max 3200, slow film 200, of Tri-X shot @ ISO 100.

[al_divenuti]

I have (finally) learned to rate film on the basis of how contrasty the light is and the developer I'm using.

 

In light that is very contrasty (dark, hard-edged shadows), I rate 400TX at EI 200 or EI 250 in most conditions.

 

In overcast conditions producing soft light (open, soft-edged shadows - if any are noticeable), I rate 400TX anywhere from EI 400 to 640.

 

In the former case I'm doing my best to expose 400TX sufficiently to try to raise the lower regions of the SBR off the film toe. In the latter case I'm deliberately trying to use the film toe to impart a richer look to lower mid-tones and shadows.

 

So, in contrasty light, there's nothing unusual about shooting 400TX at EI 200. For me, it's standard operating procedure.

 

On the other hand, I don't really use this approach with Kodak TMY. That's a short-toed film and underexposure means I'm likely to lose shadow detail altogether. I'd never think of shooting Kodak TMY in contrasty light above EI 200, and I think EI 160 is better still.

 

In overcast conditions, I shoot TMY around box speed. You won't see a huge change in gradation when you shoot TMY at EI 200 vs EI 400 in these conditions.