Following Massive recomendations but getting thin negatives including frame numbers.

[chasford]

I'm processing Tri-X in D76 and following the Massive guides, once with stock D76 and once with D76 1:1. Each time I'm getting thin negatives including light frame numbers. I just started processing my own B&W again after many years and I never experienced anything like this before. Is there something I'm missing or don't know about the Massive guidelines? Has anyone out there experienced this and have any suggestions regarding extending processing time?

Process times: 

D76 1:1 

9:45 at 20C

Agitation for first min + 10 sec every 1min

 

[Niels - NHSN]

Massive is just a starting point. Adjust to suit your taste and requirements.

[kmac]

Your shots might be underexposed.

9:45mins at 20C is correct according to Kodak's chart, for Tri-X in D76 1:1

You may need to check your light meter for accuracy.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by kmac

[AJG]

9 minutes ago, kmac said:

Your shots might be underexposed.

9:45mins at 20C is correct according to Kodak's chart, for Tri-X in D76 1:1

You may need to check your light meter for accuracy.

 

 

The OP states that the frame number are light, which has nothing to do with camera exposure. The negatives may indeed be underexposed, but it sounds like underdevelopment to me.  For the OP:  is your thermometer accurate?  Is the developer fresh?  

[kmac]

2 minutes ago, AJG said:

The OP states that the frame number are light, which has nothing to do with camera exposure.

Quite right ... so we really need more info from the OP to assess were the anomaly was in the whole process.

[chasford]

Thanks for the responses. The D76 is fresh... made one day before processing.  I just checked my Paterson thermometer with a digital and is absolutely accurate. The Tri-X has a date of 05/2025 so it's good. I have never heard of a bad batch of D76 so I'm going to count that out. .  I have never heard that too much stop bath or fixer could cause thinning of the emulsion. Maybe I need to run a roll with stock D76 at the recommended time to see if I get the same results. I processed B&W for over 15 years before digital took over and never had this problem. 

[kmac]

A photo of your negatives would be good in trying to figuring it out. Perhaps the frame numbers are not as bad as you think they are.

[Rick Helmke]

I’ve processed hundreds of rolls of Tri X in D-76 and Acufine and it’s clear you are either under developing or your developer is bad and that’s not likely. Shoot a test roll and run it at about 70F, 1:1 for about 13 minutes. You should be fine. If the letters and numbers are still under developed then try a new batch of developer. 
 

Rick H.

[glen_h]

I never tried to estimate development based on frame numbers, other than PanF+ which

is known to have poor latent image keeping, and they do tend to get light.

 

Data sheet is here:

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/resources/f4017_TriX.pdf

 

Tri-X, and its develpment time, have changed over the years, which people who like

to use antique film sometimes need to know.  Yours should agree with above.

 

Might be good to check your meter and camera shutter and aperture.

 

Otherwise, you might try a different developer.

 

 

 

[ed_farmer]

If your film edges are not solidly dark, you can only have one of a few problems:

First, you may be under developing which could be improper dilution, poor temperature control, poor agitation or old developer.

Second, the problem could be your film stock.  I've never seen poor latent image retention with Tri-X but today, it's possible that you are using very old stock that may, or may not, have been properly stored despite what you have been told about it.  

Third, as noted elsewhere, there have been several slightly different versions of Tri-X.  I don't remember how different processing times were but you need make sure that you are using time/temp for correct version.  

I can't think of much else . . . but . . . I just reread the thread before hitting submit . . . 

Yes, over fixing CAN reduce density.  Fixer is supposed to remove the unexposed silver only but if left too long (standard fix time in rapid fixer?)

[rodeo_joe1]

If you're using 35mm film, then run a quick clip test with a bit of exposed leader. Can be done in normal room lighting without a tank. You only need about half-a-frame of film. 

Just get the developer up to temperature, pour a few millilitres into a small beaker - even an eggcup will do. Dip the film into the dev for the maker's recommended time; agitating in any way possible about every 30 seconds. 

After the dev time is up; either rinse or stop, as per your preference, then fix for the recommended time. You should now have a bit of film with a good Dmax of around 2.5D to 3.0D - if you have a densitometer to measure it. 

Otherwise the film should be about dense enough to see a lit light-fitting through fairly easily, but too dense to read a newspaper through in normal room lighting. 

I always do a clip-test like this if I'm unsure of the freshness of a developer, or it's a developer that's new to me. It's saved a wasted film on numerous occasions, and saved embarrassment when I miscalculated a dilution a few months ago. (1+9 instead of 1+7. Ooops!) 

Edit: Incidentally, D-76 can go bad in storage. It's possible for the developing agents (smaller bag or sachet) to oxidise through the plastic. If the powder looks brownish, then it's suspect. 

Edited March 26, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[rodeo_joe1]

On 3/22/2023 at 5:05 PM, ed_farmer said:

Yes, over fixing CAN reduce density.  Fixer is supposed to remove the unexposed silver only but if left too long (standard fix time in rapid fixer?)

IME you'd have to leave a developed film in fixer for one heck of a time (maybe hours) to make a noticeable difference to its density. 

[chasford]

On 3/21/2023 at 7:50 PM, Rick Helmke said:

I’ve processed hundreds of rolls of Tri X in D-76 and Acufine and it’s clear you are either under developing or your developer is bad and that’s not likely. Shoot a test roll and run it at about 70F, 1:1 for about 13 minutes. You should be fine. If the letters and numbers are still under developed then try a new batch of developer. 
 

Rick H.

Thanks Rick! I processed a test roll of Tri-X ... 70ºF, 1:1, for 13mins. (Kodak recommends 9mins.) The images look very good, not thin, however the frame numbers are still lighter than on my old Tri-X film, processed 20 years ago. I'm thinking Kodak changed something regarding the "burn-in" of the frame numbers for some reason. Maybe they are trying to save time and money? 🙂  Why would the development time difference, 4 mins, be so great?

Edited March 27, 2023 by chasford

[glen_h]

21 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

IME you'd have to leave a developed film in fixer for one heck of a time (maybe hours) to make a noticeable difference to its density. 

I think I did it once with prints.

Yes hours. Maybe noticeable in one hour.

[Rick Helmke]

I can’t speak to the density of the frame numbers but that’s how I’ve done Tri X since the 70’s. My preference doesn’t always agree with the manufacturer but it works for me. 
 

Rick H.

[rodeo_joe1]

I can't believe you need nearly 50% more than Kodak's recommended time to get a decent density with Tri-X. Kodak actually do know what they're talking about in their datasheets. 

So there's something amiss somewhere. How old is the D-76 you're using - I mean in powder form before being made up? 

D-76 can go bad. The sachets aren't completely hermetic and the Metol can oxidise in storage. 

There's also a possibility that the water used to make up the developer is acidic or contaminated in some way that reduces the activity of the developer. Although that's much less likely than having a bad batch of D-76 to start with. 

Edited March 28, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[rodeo_joe1]

Just to illustrate how a developer can go off: Here's what happened to a bottle of T-max concentrate I had over a period of about 2 months. Prior to that it had been fine for ages. 

First, a good development of some 5052 TMX (left) next to one that turned out a bit 'thin' and rang alarm bells. Part of fully-fogged leaders shown, as would be seen on a light-box - 

And a few weeks later - 

The Dmax 1.8 was (luckily) just a clip-test of the developer. Showing that it was 'clapped out' and had gone bad. 

The brown tone of the thin film's leader also indicates a problem with the developer. 

The 'thin' film with Dmax 2.3 was still perfectly printable/scannable BTW. So a slight under development is no big deal. Under-exposure, OTOH, just can't be properly rescued. 

I'm not so sure about the density of frame numbers and other edge markings being a reliable guide to development. In my experience they vary widely between film types and even between batches of the same film. 

FWIW, the densities were read using a Sakura PDA-81 analogue readout densitometer. It's calibration was recently checked using known ND filter gels. Probably not up to NPL standards, but close enough for general photography! 

Edited March 28, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[Gary Naka]

On 3/21/2023 at 5:21 PM, chasford said:

Thanks for the responses. The D76 is fresh... made one day before processing.  I just checked my Paterson thermometer with a digital and is absolutely accurate. The Tri-X has a date of 05/2025 so it's good. I have never heard of a bad batch of D76 so I'm going to count that out. .  I have never heard that too much stop bath or fixer could cause thinning of the emulsion. Maybe I need to run a roll with stock D76 at the recommended time to see if I get the same results. I processed B&W for over 15 years before digital took over and never had this problem. 

 

Just because it is a digital thermometer does not mean it is accurate.  If the digital thermometer isn't calibrated, who knows how accurate it is.

In the old days, one of the home calibration methods was:

• bring water up to about 98F +/-
  • It does NOT have to be exactly 98, just close enough for the next step
• measure water temp with a mercury fever thermometer,
  • I don't know if you can find a mercury fever thermometer any more.
• then measure with your photo thermometer, and compare readings.

CAUTION-1  This only calibrates the photo thermometer to 98F.  The accuracy at a different temp could be spot on, or way off.
98F is 28F warmer than the 70F in the spec sheet above, so there is a LOT of room for the temp accuracy to change.

I had a calibrated Kodak process thermometer, that I checked my dial thermometers against.

 

Other thoughts:

• How is your agitation method?  If you under-agitate, that could be a cause of under-developing.
• Are you using a plastic or SS developing tank?
• If you are using a SS tank, are you using a water bath, to hold the temp of the tank and developer steady?
• I had not thought of water change as RJ mentioned.  They chemicals into the water, to kill the bugs, and for other reasons.  Maybe one of those chemicals might be retarding the developer.  Acidic water might be acting like weak stop bath, and slowing down the developer.

[glen_h]

On 3/20/2023 at 11:08 AM, chasford said:

(snip)

 

Process times: 

D76 1:1 

9:45 at 20C

Agitation for first min + 10 sec every 1min

 

As I noted previously, the data sheet is here:

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/resources/f4017_TriX.pdf

and it recommends agitation every 30 seconds for small tank.

 

What they call large tank is a really large tank, big enough for many rolls of film,

maybe a gallon or two.  And the time is a little longer.

 

Exactly how underdeveloped it is with 60 second agitation is hard to say,

but it might be enough.  And then there is how much you actually do in

your 10 seconds. 

 

[rodeo_joe1]

3 hours ago, glen_h said:

Exactly how underdeveloped it is with 60 second agitation is hard to say,

I'll venture to say "not a lot". 

In fact I'd be surprised if there's any visible density difference between a film agitated at 30 second intervals, and one given identical agitation at 1 minute intervals; especially over a 9 minute dev time. Because IME the quality of agitation is more important than its quantity. 

I.e. ignore stupid 'slo-mo' figure-of-eight wrist callisthenics, as seen on YouTube!

And make sure there's a good airspace in the tank for inversion agitation. That's enough solution to cover the film properly by about 3mm, but definitely not completely filling the tank to the brim. 

Edited March 28, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[glen_h]

36 minutes ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

I'll venture to say "not a lot". 

In fact I'd be surprised if there's any visible density difference between a film agitated at 30 second intervals, and one given identical agitation at 1 minute intervals; especially over a 9 minute dev time. Because IME the quality of agitation is more important than its quantity. 

I.e. ignore stupid 'slo-mo' figure-of-eight wrist callisthenics, as seen on YouTube!

And make sure there's a good airspace in the tank for inversion agitation. That's enough solution to cover the film properly by about 3mm, but definitely not completely filling the tank to the brim. 

The time on the official data sheet for small tank (30 seconds) to large (60 seconds)

goes from 9:45 to 11:00.   That, in combination with, as you note "slo-mo figure-of-eight"

motion, might be enough. And maybe the film was slightly underexposed, and the

thermometer is just a little bit off.  All adding up in the same direction.

 

Any one of those might not be noticed.

[rodeo_joe1]

25 minutes ago, glen_h said:

The time on the official data sheet for small tank (30 seconds) to large (60 seconds)

goes from 9:45 to 11:00.

It sounds quite a lot, but really only represents less than a 13% time difference. So even if that directly translated to a density difference (unlikely), it would hardly be visible - measurable yes, but barely detectable by eye. 

FWIW: The usual hand agitation method with a standard 3 gallon tank is to lift and drain the cage containing film reels. This done twice per agitation cycle; lifting and draining while tipping the cage once to each side - left and right. It's quite an efficient method of agitation, with little chance of streaking or uneven density. It has to be done reasonably slowly, though, to avoid the drag of the liquid pulling the film from its spiral. You can't just yank the cage straight out, or drop it back into the tank in free fall. So a 30 second cycle would be almost continuous agitation. 

[glen_h]

37 minutes ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

It sounds quite a lot, but really only represents less than a 13% time difference. So even if that directly translated to a density difference (unlikely), it would hardly be visible - measurable yes, but barely detectable by eye. 

FWIW: The usual hand agitation method with a standard 3 gallon tank is to lift and drain the cage containing film reels. This done twice per agitation cycle; lifting and draining while tipping the cage once to each side - left and right. It's quite an efficient method of agitation, with little chance of streaking or uneven density. It has to be done reasonably slowly, though, to avoid the drag of the liquid pulling the film from its spiral. You can't just yank the cage straight out, or drop it back into the tank in free fall. So a 30 second cycle would be almost continuous agitation. 

 

When I first saw "large tank", and I had a little 35mm Nikor, I thought it meant

maybe a four-reel Nikor.  That seemed large to me at the time.

 

But then later I learned about the 3 gallon tanks you mean, though haven't used one.

 

But yes, I was wondering where the OP got the idea of 1 minute interval for small tanks.

[Bettendorf]

2 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

FWIW: The usual hand agitation method with a standard 3 gallon tank is to lift and drain the cage containing film reels.

 

When did the OP ever mention 3 gallon tanks in his three postings?

 

1 hour ago, glen_h said:

But yes, I was wondering where the OP got the idea of 1 minute interval for small tanks.

 

From every published data sheet in the universe for Tri-X and D76.

[Rick Helmke]

When I was doing a lot of film we were using an automated processor that agitated the film constantly. It was fine with E6 and kept very good temperature control. Doing any b&w film yielded a noticeably denser negative than using a stainless steel tank and manual agitation every 30 seconds. I prefer that result and continue to use those times and temps.

 

Rick H.