PMK and the New Tri-X

[paul_brenner1]

Following are my preliminary findings with PMK and the new Tri-X (ASA

400, medium format):

 

Developing for my standard time, the negs were clearly over-

developed. As first shot I tried 10% less. It seems to be about

right.

 

A busy schedule has kept me from darkroom printing for a while. But

in scanning some of these negs, they apparently have less density, as

the scans start out less bright than the scans of "old" Tri-X. The

negs look pretty similar, but I notice clear, unexposed film is more

neutral than with the old Tri-X (not that there's a lot of stain in

unexposed areas.) This could mean less overall density. And

obviously, eyeballing a neg is not a scientific way to judge density!

 

Anyway, I'm curious what experience others have had with PMK and the

new Tri-X.

 

Paul

[jim_kish]

Well, my report's pretty dull. After initally trying a 10% reduction in development time, a recommendation from a knowledgeable friend, I kept increasing the time to get the proper contrast. Eventually I wound up at...the same time I used for the old Tri-X.

[trefor_hopkins1]

the 135 is abysmal! the negs are very thin, and the used pmk when poured off to use as afterbath has a funny pinky-orange to it. i haven't changed anything except the film (which kodak changed for me :( )

 

it left me printing base at g5 with fill at g3! (ilf mg warm fb/mg500 head/d72 1:5) WHAT have they done to my fave film? in search of answers... don't believe for one minute that all kodak changed was the film base... hc110 times are nearly halved (by the book)

 

substantial re-testing is called for. as a start point (given that PMK doesn't behave like a normal dev in terms of push/pull) i'm going for double strength next time!

 

if i can't get decent results soon i'm going to have to switch to something like hp5...

[paul_brenner1]

Trefor,

 

Very interesting. Among other things, you've confirmed once again what I've experienced for twenty years, that 135 Tri-X 400 is not the same film as 120 Tri-X 400 (regardless of what Kodak says.) In any case, Kodak has sure thrown us a curve.

 

Anyway, back to PMK: I always found that Tri-X stained strongly, to the point that I re-soaked the film in PMK straight from the rapid fix, to "tame" the stain. That no longer seems to be true. The stain seems more neutral. When I developed my first test roll of nes film for my standard time, I did a water soak between fix and PMK; a bit hard for me to distinguish between over-development and strong stain. My second roll, I broke a rule and changed two factors: Shorter development and no water soak. Before I develop several rolls from a trip to New Mexico, I think I need to burn two test rolls to test my "old" time with less stain, and my "new" time with more stain. My suspicion is that the new time and more stain may be right on.

 

Paul