Tri-x and xtol and why dilute?

[peter_kim2]

Ive been trying to decide on a film and developer and I've settled

on my old favorite Tri-X and also Xtol developer. I was just

wondering though, Ive read a lot of people (well some anyway)

develop tri-x and xtol at 1:1 and when they push to 800 (which I

tend to do fairly often) they develop it undiluted.

 

Whats the best meathod with tri-x aat 400 and 800 nd whats the

purpose of developing (in general) in developers like D-76 or xtol

undiluted or diluted?

[hans_beckert]

Dilution reduces contrast and enhances sharpness and grain. You may find results when pushing better than with undiluted developer.

[peter_kim2]

Thanks for that simple but clear answer Hans. So if I were to push tri-x to 800, then using xtol 1:1 (or with other developers 1:1) then the sharpness will increase as well as the grain? I guess then thats a trade-off regardless of whether I shoot at 400 or 800.

 

If I like smaller grain then dont dilute, if I don't mind bigger grain as a trade off for sharpness then dilute?

 

Thanks!

[stephen hazelton]

Peter, another factor is economy. 8 fluid ounces of D76 solution is enough chemicals to develop a roll of 35mm or 120 film, but it isn't enough liquid to cover the reel in my tank. Diluting 1:1 solves that problem.

[hans_beckert]

"Peter Kim , nov 22, 2003; 11:27 p.m.

Thanks for that simple but clear answer Hans. So if I were to push tri-x to 800, then using xtol 1:1 (or with other developers 1:1) then the sharpness will increase as well as the grain?"

 

Yes, but the contrast will be kept a bit lower, which will help if you're pushing. Graininess will increase when you dilute, and pushing increases the graininess too, but dilution helps tame the extra contrast pushing causes.

 

"I guess then thats a trade-off regardless of whether I shoot at 400 or 800."

 

Yes. You must understand, though, that you'll get better results if you don't push, and in fact many people use 400 ISO films at less than ISO (meaning we use them at about 200-320 or so) and get great results. When we need more speed, we use one of the super-speed films (Kodak T-max 3200 or Ilford Delta 3200), and rate it conservatively.

 

"If I like smaller grain then don't dilute, if I don't mind bigger grain as a trade off for sharpness then dilute?"

 

Yes, roughly that's correct. Solvent developers such as D-76 or Microdol-X need high concentrations to achieve their refinement of grain. Using them 1:3 produces much more prominent grain than the undiluted form. You have to choose what you want. If I were you and I needed an 800 speed fast film, I'd use Ilford Delta 3200, rate it at 800, and develop it in Perceptol undiluted.

[EricM]

Hans, that's a great answer. I understand though, that diluting D-76 from stock or 1:1 changes it from a solvent developer to a non-solvent developer, maybe at 1:3? Do you know if this is correct?

[hans_beckert]

Eric Stillz , nov 23, 2003; 12:41 a.m.

"Hans, that's a great answer. I understand though, that diluting D-76 from stock or 1:1 changes it from a solvent developer to a non-solvent developer, maybe at 1:3? Do you know if this is correct?"

 

D-76 changes to a semi-solvent developer when diluted. The difference is small. As all the ingredients are reduced in concentration equally, the character does not change radically, but it does change some. If you want a true high-acutance developer, dilute D-76 is not it. The concentration of D-76 at stock strength is the best overall with anything other than 35mm film used with condenser enlargers. In the case of 35mm and condenser enlargers, dilution 1:1 is better, but even better developers are available than D-76 1:1 for 35mm work. Paterson Acutol is better for one, and some people like Rodinal, though I don't. There are other acutance developers available. Kodak Xtol is supposed to be another fine entry in that class, but I have not used it. Acutol will generally give the sharpest negatives you can get, but of course you must be using very high-grade equipment and good technique to exploit these kinds of developers.

 

If you compare the formula of a true high-acutance developer to dilute D-76, you'll see there's still a lot of solvent even at 1:3 dilution.

[rahim_pradhan1]

I haven�t had a chance to read all the responses, but i have tested and tested tri-x in xtol with densitometry for school. pushing tri-x is good, but you will loose a lot of shadow detail. You have to remember, expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights (thanks Ansel Adams).

 

In my tests with xtol, i found the best to be xtol 1:3 for sharpness and tri-x exposed at 125-160 ASA. This will give enough exposure for zone III, (shadow detail where we expect to see information).

 

Like one of the posts above, for faster ISO, I use either t-max 3200 or delta 3200 and rate it at 800 (at 1250, zone III was pretty much closed).

 

Lastly, if you push your film then you will get more contrasty prints, an aesthetic choice. But if you expose your film correctly then you can get whatever you want in the printing process, form neutral prints with pure black and beautiful grays and pure whites or super contrasty prints with lots of black and lots of white - it's your choice.

 

That is why I prefer to shoot my film properly and have all the choices available to me in the printing process.

 

Hope this helps,

Rahim