Developer for Tri-X at 200

[galileo42]

<p>What would you pick for the best compromise between sharpness and grain (less) for Tri-X at EI 200 among these developers:<br>

- DDX<br>

- D-76<br>

- HC110<br>

-Rodinal</p>

<p>Also, there are some solid cristals formed at the bottom of an almost empty bottle of DDX, and it's turned yellowish. Woud you risk using it?</p>

<p>Thanks a lot.</p>

[AJG]

<p>Michel--I have used HC 110 for over 20 years with Tri-X 35mm and 120 with great results.</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>The favorite for TXP @ ASA/ISO 200 has always been D76 1:1. Perceptible grain at about 16X. Start with Kodak's recommendation.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>The DDX is long gone.<br>

I use D76 and Tri X at 200 and it is a superb combination. Plus x is even nicer for a wet darkroom. I can`t seem to scan it well, but it prints beautifully. The tri x scans and prints. I can`t seem to figure it out. Same paper, same standard test subject, and they both print under the same conditions on the same paper. Just that the Plus will not scan. </p>

[david_weiss2]

<p>I tried the Tri-X EI 200 with d76 1:1 this past weekend - very dull results with a grade 3 filter. How long are folks leaving this souped? Are you going for scans or actual wet prints (I was wet printing). </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Sharpness and grain are mutually exclusive in developer choices. High acutance developers, which give you sharpness, also give you very crisp grain. When a developer has a stronger solvent action, it softens the grain, but at the cost of acutance. With your D-76, you can see both sides of the same coin: develop one roll in straight D-76, the other in 8 ounces of D-76 and 8 ounces of water (presuming a 35mm roll). Kodak gives times for both of those at EI 400, reduce by 15% (approximate) for EI 200.<br>

Rodinal is a very high acutance developer, but not very good at getting full film speed. Might be a good choice if you're exposing at EI 200.<br>

For the ultimate in solvent look, try Microdol-X undiluted.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>In many years of comparing the two on Tri-X rated from 200-800, I don't see a nickel's difference between HC-110 (any standard dilution) and either ID-11 or D-76 at 1+1. There might be some films that'll reveal significant differences between these two developers but I never could see it with Tri-X. Both are very good.</p>

<p>Save the Rodinal for slower film, ISO 100 or slower, if you want good sharpness and fine grain. Even at EI 200 the standard Rodinal dilutions all reveal grain in large expanses of similar tones (skies, water, skin) with Tri-X. Depends on enlargement of course - up to 8x10 from 35mm it won't be a problem.</p>

[mikeseb]

<p>Lex, goodness knows you know as much about this as anyone here---so I must be an outlier. I've never been thrilled with Tri-X in HC-110 (usually at 1+40 or 1+50 dilutions from syrup; any more concentrated gives me very short times at 24ºC in a Jobo) compared to Tri-X in either D-76 (good) or Xtol (very good) straight or 1+1.<br /> <br /> I must be doing something wrong; I find Tri-X in Xtol to be noticeably sharper than in HC-110, and with full film speed to boot.</p>

[jimsimmons]

<p>Tri-X at 200 in HC-110 dilution B used to be my standard. Eventually I raised the developing temperature a bit to get a bit more contrast and harder-edged grain out of it, and that was my "look" for a few years. Loved it. I'm now scanning those old negs at 3200 dpi, and they're coming out very nice.<br>

Were I choosing a commercial developer now, it would likely be Xtol. I now use PC-TEA with Fuji B&W stocks and Ilford FP4+.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>D-76 a little snappier than HC-110(which is my usual dev.), D-76 not too much, I hate mixing it. All depends on how you print too, but they are very close. Again, you really have to see which you prefer using, I hate powders, so I use HC110.</p>

[john romano]

<p>D-76 1:1. Better than HC-110 because you'll be less likely to blow out the highlights, unless you use HC-110 1/2 oz concentrate to 31-1/2 ounces of water (which is twice the amount of water as HC-110 dilution B).</p>

<p>I'd still stick with D-76 1:1. And, use distilled water for everything.</p>

[galileo42]

<p>Thanks for your advice, all. Ronald, what do you mean by «DDX is long gone»? That the cristals at the bottom indicate it's not good anymore?</p>

<p>BTW, I keep seeing references to «condenser» or «diffuser» enlargers, each seemingly requiring slightly different negs. I don't have a darkroom. I develop my films, then I scan them. For scanning, what would be the recommendation? Negs for «condenser» enlarger, or «diffuser»?</p>

<p>Thank you again.</p>

[mark f]

<p>Xtol was not on the list, but it is my favorite for Tri-X. D-76 is certainly the classic developer for triX and is a great choice too. </p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Xtol is the answer, but DD-X would be my second choice on that list, but D-76 is very good for Tri-X.</p>

[galileo42]

<p>Thanks again. I only listed the developers I had already. I used to use Xtol (and liked it a lot), but I stopped when they stopped selling 1 liter bags. 5 liters was too much, especially whent I went almost exclusively digital. But now, I'm going back to b&w film more and more (and do I love it!) so maybe 5 liters won't be too much anymore.</p>