Tri-X in Ilfosol-S

[aa2000]

Hi,

 

I just processed a roll of Tri-X 400 (old version) in Ilford Ilfosol-S

and the results are really bad. The negative is almost black (white on

the prints), and more grainy than the same film developed in TMAX or

HC-110. The densitiy is so high, that I can't scan the negative on my

HP-S20 film scanner. The film margins are OK, just the frames are

black (mostly) AND white, almost 0% grays (huge contrast).

 

I did everything right, as suggested on the Ilfosol bottle, and the

time was adjusted for the room temperature.

 

It's not the first time

when I use Tri-X, but never tried it with Ilfosol-S until now. Other

films (ORWO Pan 400, Ilford HP5+) come out fine with this developer.

 

What do you think about this? Do you have similar experience?

 

Thanks,

[scott_eaton]

About matches my results, along with Tri-X in Tmax developer which was equally as bad.

 

Use Xtol or D76, or even Rodinal at 1:50 with Tri-X. You'll get better results.

[r.m.]

Alexandru, you might like to give DD-X a try. I've had very nice results with Tri-X 400, rating anywhere from 320-800.

[steve_barnett2]

I'll second DD-X. After trying it with Tri-X for the first time this weekend I think it is wonderful. Great tones, sharp, and very nice grain.

[lex_jenkins]

I've developed Tri-X in Ilfosol-S several times, never had a problem. The worst I can say about the combination is it produces grainier negatives than Tri-X in Rodinal.

 

Your results indicate that something else was wrong. Either the exposures were off, the film was fogged, the developer was stale (Ilfosol-S has a relatively short shelf life in concentrate unless care is taken to minimize airspace and prevent oxidation), or some other factor was involved.

 

Ilfosol-S can also produced high base fog in more dilute solutions and extended development times. For example, using the 1:14 dilution for push processing Tri-X would almost guarantee high base fog and very grainy negatives.

[gareth_harper]

If you over expose or overdevelope tri-x it quickly becomes thick, dense and unuseable. I try to expose and develope to produce a thin neg. A tri-x neg underexposed by about one stop is as good as a normal neg and much easier to work with. One stop over and it's unworkable. Tmax is much better in this respect. +/- one stop is not a problem. Tri-x is nice stuff though and worth some experiment.

[sam_portera]

I have used Tri-X in Ilfosol-S without a problem. I agree with Lex that it does produce as much as or more grain than Rodinal 1+50. I now use Rodinal because its much cheaper than Ilfosol-S. I am finishing a 100 Ft roll of Tri-x and I still have Rodinal to spare (500ml bottle)

[aa2000]

Thanks for the answers.

 

I forgot to say that I used Ilfosol S in higher (1+9) dilution, trying to make the time longer (because it was hot that day and I wanted times above 5 mins). I think this dilution contributed to the failure.

 

Anyway, I'm not going to try again with regular (1+4) dilution. I'll save Ilfosol-S for Ilford PanF or FP4+, and process all the ISO400 films in HC-110. These are the only developers that I have now, and HC-110 (dil. B) with Tri-X at 400 works fine from my experience.

[aa2000]

Sorry, I mean 1+9 - regular dilution; 1+14 - my try.

[lex_jenkins]

Good idea. Ilfosol-S does seem to work best with slower, finer grain films.