Which is easier? Tri-X or C-41?

[kivis]

<p>Which is easier to develop to negatives at home, TR-X or C-41 film? I have not developed film in 25 years and want to get back into this. Pros and cons as well.<br>

Thanks,</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>At home?<br>

IMHO, Tri-X, just developer, and an archival fixer at minimum. Temperature control is not as critical either.</p>

<p>The main reason for the C-41 chromogenics has to be that you don't do it at home, although they can be lovely B&W films.</p>

[zml]

<p>For DIY home developing, in the great scheme of things, the only differences (other than the obvious look/feel of the developed film and the fact that C-41 emulsions come as B&W and color) are that the C-41 process needs more steps and is (or at least might be) more expensive on per roll basis. Other than that it is all in measurements: exact volume, temperature and time control and consistency of the process ("stir twice every 60 seconds") and that part doesn't differ regardless of the process In the old times I hated the smell of chromogenic chemistry but this is not the case anymore.<br>

As for the subjective part - I like classic B&W films way better also because one can greatly influence the characteristics of the final image by using different processing,</p>

[wblynch]

<p>I have better luck with C-41. The timing is consistent for all films and the regiment is easier to remember. I always get good results from my DIY C-41.</p>

<p>There's so much more worry with Tri-X. I have to see what developer I have and then worry about dilution and time. I used the massive development chart and that steered me way wrong. I mean come on, Tri-X in HC-110 should be a no-brainer right? Not on the MDC. There are conflicting times<br>

<br />My few rolls of Tri-X I have either over exposed or over developed and get these thick, dark negatives that are difficult to use.</p>

<p>For my next Tri-X roll I need to be very careful and diligent. Way more to worry about.</p>

 

[carbon_dragon]

Black and white (e.g. Tri-X) is generally considered easier because there are fewer chemicals and the temperatures are

less critical. No need for water baths with controlled temperatures or special machines.

[kivis]

<p>Getting confused.</p>

[Niels - NHSN]

<p>No reason to get confused. Tri-X is easier. (for most people).</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I've been developing Tri-X for 40 years and nothing could be simpler. Learned when I was 12, so literally a child can do it. I use D-76 (none of the fancy developers, not even HC-110) and Kodak Rapid Fix with a water rinse in between rather than stop bath. I use the time and temperatures recommended by Kodak, usually at 75 degrees F. It is extremely forgiving -- you can be off a couple of degrees or even a little bit off on the timing and still get good results. I've never had a roll "not turn out" or be so far off that I couldn't print from it.<br /><br />I've only done a little C-41, but from my limited experience the temperature control and timing are much more critical. But some people are very good at it and do it all the time. Depending on the chemical set you choose, it can be done with only two chemicals -- developer and blix. I think the recent chemical sets can be used around the same temperature as B&W developer, but in the past I think it use to be around 100 degrees.<br /><br />The argument against C-41 at home is that it's easy to get good C-41 developing at a local lab for less than what it costs to do it at home and maybe even quicker than the time it takes you to set up for it. (I'm talking film developing. Prints can be another story.) Whereas good B&W is not easy to find most places, so you almost have to do it yourself.<br /><br />I could see processing color C-41 at home. But as for chromogenic, I don't see any point to it. Regular B&W is much easier for me.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>I'm currently in a love-fest with the C-41 B&W film from Kodak, even though I mainly develop C-41 at home. The nicest part of it all is when it comes to scanning, and I can use digital dust and scratch removal to yield excellent digital images. I have tried to print them on RA-4 paper and the results are very mixed. It's darn hard to get them with no color tint. Fortunately there are plenty of other ways to print, including my personal favorite, Mpix.com. They do "true black and white" on Ilford paper and the results are very very nice.</p>

<p>That being said, if you want to print your own, Ilford's C-41 film is much easier to work with due to no orange mask. Some say the film is virtually grain free. My personal favorite for wet printing though is Fuji's Acros, a traditional (non-C-41) film. For my money nothing beats an Acros print.</p><div></div>

[franklin_polk]

<p>I'd say Tri-X, due to less stringent temperature requirements for the chemicals (a couple degrees from developer, and as much as four for fixer/stop). The chemicals also can be easier to obtain, and depending on what you get for developer, can last a lot longer than color chemicals; I wouldn't keep C-41 dev more than a couple months, but Rodinal and HC-110 can last years.<br>

Thinking out loud, theoretically, C-41 b&w (BW400CN and XP2) might not need as much temperature regulation as color C-41, since you clearly don't have to worry about color shifts. I'd still stick with b&w for home use if you are just starting out.</p>

[wblynch]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=938526">Craig Shearman</a> wrote: ...The argument against C-41 at home is that it's easy to get good C-41 developing at a local lab for less than what it costs to do it at home and maybe even quicker than the time it takes you to set up for it...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is true for 35mm. But for odd sizes like 127, 126 or 110 Instamatic and even 120 it's very difficult to find low-cost local labs. You either have to send it out, pay a ton of money for a 'professional' lab, or do it yourself.</p>

<p>I have had fine results with the DIY. I don't have to worry about losing my valuable 620 or 127 spools and backing paper. For Instamatic cartridges, a lab would be disaster since they would crush and trash the shell, spool and paper.</p>

<p>The major side benefit is no scratched, dirty or blotchy negatives.</p>

<p> </p>

[qtao]

<p>I favor C-41 now.<br>

I got an used Jobo CPE2 with several magneted jogs, I have been doing all C-41 at home, quality is reliable, temperature control is not a problem with CPE2. at relative low temperature, I have less stress to control developing time.<br>

I usually buy a third party C-41 from B&H(20-25 USD/kit). one kit for 12-14 rolls of 135-36 exposure, or 8-10 rolls of 120, or 10-12 sheet of 4x5. also fun to use C-41 to develop slide films.</p>

 

[btmuir]

<p>Nice to see people doing home c41 these days.<br>

It really is simple.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>This is true for 35mm. But for odd sizes like 127, 126 or 110 Instamatic and even 120 it's very difficult to find <a id="itxthook1" href="00an9p?start=10" rel="nofollow">low-cost</a> local labs. You either have to send it out, pay a ton of <a id="itxthook2" href="00an9p?start=10" rel="nofollow">money</a> for a 'professional' lab, or do it yourself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>220 roll of Portra 160 via Walmart send out service, no prints...</p>

<p><img src="http://i47.tinypic.com/v7xm34.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="557" /></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Which is easier to develop to negatives at home, TR-X or C-41 film?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would do Tri-X. If you do slow speed B&W (100 ISO and below) Rodinal stand is the easy way to go. You only need two chemicals, developer (Rodinal) and fixer (Kodafix)... oh, and photo flo for the final rinse.</p>

[g_trout]

<p>The only drawback to c-41 BW is NO contrast, density or D-Max control..if you subject matches the contrast range of the film it looks fine but you cannot apply any advanced tricks, which is easy with Tr-x..(my favorite is D-76 1:1)</p>