Tri-X, TMax and Microphen

[alberto_amatucci]

<p>Hi, <br>

this is my first post here.<br>

However, I've been knowing this site for a long time.<br />I would like to ask you a suggestion:<br>

First of all, I can deal with loss of quality and tonal compression but I can't deal with a blank or underdeveloped film.<br /><br /><br>

I shot two rolls, one of Tri-X and the other of Tmax 400, metering at 3200 ISO. This because I was at a competition, using a long telephoto lens and needed a suitable speed for a maximum aperture of f/4.<br>

Now, it's time to develop them. Yesterday I mixed some Microphen and let it rest overnight. I was planning to use Xtol but since I don't need to buy film/etc. it would be highly expensive to buy.<br>

Reading here, I've found a member who suggests 24 minutes using Microphen 1+0. I think that this is way too much. <br>

On Anchell's book, Tri-X at 3200 should be developed in Microphen 1+1 for 24 minutes and I think that this is more logical; on digitaltruth.com there is a little table with conversion factor for times not listed in a technical sheet.<br /><br /><br>

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?doc=pushproc<br>

I have made some calculations:<br>

Tri-x in Microphen has a EI of 500. So, from 500 to 3200 it's a push of a little less of 3 stops.<br />So, http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427133131459.pdf says:<br>

Tri-X in Microphen 1+1 at 500 -> 11 minutes <br>

Following digitaltruth's table we obtain 11*2,5=27,5. However, since we are not pushing for three stops but for a little less, I think it's safe to subtract one/two minutes. <br /><br />Am I thinking correctly? <br />Also, what do you suggest? Straight or 1+1? I'm not interest in economy, I would like to minimize the grain and obtain the greatest tonal range possible (and last but not least, I will have to keep the developer at a temperature of 20 °C for a long time).<br>

Thanks</p>

[elsa_cooper]

<p>The times you suggest seems to be reasonable. The calculator of the <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=photography.darkroom">Film Developer app</a> says:</p>

<ul>

<li>Tri-X @ 3200 in Microphen 1+1 (Ilford agitation scheme, 20 °C): 27 minutes</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Tri-X @ 3200 in Microphen 1+0 (Ilford agitation scheme, 20 °C): 14:45 minutes</li>

</ul>

 

[lex_jenkins]

Beyond 20 minutes the timing becomes less

critical with Microphen. Don't worry about a few

minutes. The most important factor will be the

exposure and lighting conditions and

subject/scene contrast.

 

I've developed pushed T-Max 100 and 400, and Tri-

X, in Microphen. Full strength is best for

pushes beyond one or two stops. The 1+1 dilution

is good for film exposed at or near the box

speed. The most extreme push was TMY at 6400 in straight Microphen, with the film shot indoors in very dim light. The negatives were thin but responded well in scanning.

 

The most impressive result I've had was with an

unmarked roll developed for more than 20 minutes.

I was told it was underexposed Tri-X, several

years old. But it turned out to be more recently

exposed T-Max 100 at the box speed. With most

developers I'd have expected the negatives too be

hopelessly over developed, but even the

highlights were okay on this roll.

 

I'm usually wary of claims about a compensating

effect with most developers, but Microphen

appears to have some compensating effect, making

long developing times less critical.

[alberto_amatucci]

<p>Thanks guys!<br>

Les, I was referring to you in my first post: do you use Microphen 1+0 for such a long (20 and over) time? Because you're adding 50% and more to the "original" dev time. Maybe I was wrong and you were referring to Microphen 1+1.<br>

Anyway, until you answer I'm settling on Microphen 1+0 for 8:45 minutes (dev time adjusted to 24 °C)</p>

[glen_h]

<p>My favorite developer since my grandfather taught be about it when I was 10 is Diafine. </p>

<p>Diafine is supposed to do 1600 for Tri-X, but only 500 or 640 for TMY.</p>

<p>Kodak recommends T-Max, T-Max RS, and Xtol for push TMY to 3200, and gives times.</p>

<p>http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4043/f4043.pdf</p>

<p>They recommend only 24C, and the times are about 1.5 times the ISO 400 24C times.</p>

<p>If you have a choice, I would try one of those, but Microphen might be fine, too.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

The type of lighting makes a big difference with pushed film. Since pushing increases contrast, flat lighting usually works best. I've had some success in coaxing a bit more shadow detail by adding an extended water bath between developing and fixing. Another factor, the pH of the water you use to mix and dilute your developer can affect the activity of it. Best to use distilled water here.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I don't think you'll find any manufacturer's data for Tri-X at 3200 in Microphen. It's pretty much anecdotal stuff from users. I'd suggest 15-20 minutes in stock solution, depending on subject/scene lighting contrast. If there's a mix of lighting and contrast throughout the roll, we can choose either to develop for the most important frames or split the difference.</p>

<p>On some rolls I've shot some frames in daylight with TMY or Tri-X rated at 1600, and the rest at night or indoors in dim lighting. I'd usually develop for the low light frames, but at the cost of some contrasty daylight frames that required more attention during enlarging in the darkroom - usually solved with selective application of Y/M filters along with dodging/burning. Scanning would involve other adjustments to cope with either thin or contrasty negatives.</p>

<p>Diafine is very different from Microphen. The two aren't comparable or interchangeable. I liked Tri-X and a couple other films in Diafine: Delta 3200, Pan F+. T-Max films looked weird in Diafine, not to my taste at all though some folks liked it. But Diafine tends to compress midtones, so skin takes on a peculiar metallic sheen. It's best for very contrasty lighting, not so great for overcast or low contrast conditions. It's also much grainier than Microphen.</p>

<p>Microphen tends to retain normal looking tonality, especially with skin. I liked it best with T-Max 400 at 1600 - the only telltale indication of pushing was the lack of true shadow detail. But midtones looked pretty normal and highlights weren't badly blocked up. Tri-X would be my second choice with Microphen for pushing. Also, I liked Microphen for normally exposed TMX, at 100 - helped control contrast in bright daylight and other contrasty lighting.</p>

<p>I've also tried some modified agitation techniques for pushing in Microphen, but it's risky. For example, with pushing 400 films to 3200-6400, I'd agitate normally for the first 5 minutes, then every 2-5 minutes for the next 15-30 minutes. This seemed to help tame contrasty with tricky stage lighting, but looking back on my live performance negatives from 10-15 years ago I see some indications of uneven development along the 35mm film sprocket holes. However I don't recall whether I developed those in plastic or stainless reels/tanks. Stainless is better for modified agitation and stand development - seems less likely to produce odd surge marks and drag than the square section plastic reel guides.</p>