Enlarging Tri-X negatives

[db1]

I know this is a loaded question but I will ask it anyway.

 

I am shooting Tri-X for the first time and I am wondering how large

I can print with these negs. I shoot 6x6 and develope in D76 1:1.

 

So, how big can I expect to go without losing sharpness and getting

grainy.

 

thanks...

[silent1]

From 6x6 in D-76 1:1, you should reasonably be able to enlarge a critically focused negative to at least 20x20 inches before grain becomes noticeable. Since larger prints are typically viewed from a distance, you might find you can make much larger prints with acceptable grain levels -- perhaps 3-4 times that size.

[johnreef]

I disagree. A 20x20 print from 6x6 TriX will most likely be grainy. Especially if there was any overdevelopment of the negative and if there are large areas of homogeneous middle tones in the print. If you are concerned about minimizing grain use TMAX100.

[hans_beckert]

It depends on how much development you give the film. I have made 14x from Tri-X with hardly noticeable grain.

[jack paradise]

I could never make an 16x20" that I was satisfied with even using an 80mm APO Rodagon.

 

I assume you are talking about the old Tri-X, not the new 400TX which is a totally different film.

-Jack

[db1]

I am using the new 400TX.

[dean_williams]

I'll agree with Donald, and I'm not guessing. I've made lots of 16x20's with 645 and 20x20's with 2 1/4 using TX negs. I rate it at 250 and dev in D76 1:1 for almost all my TX chores. I have no problem with sharpness. The grain is quite small, too small to see unless you get your face right up in it. It's only a 10 X enlargement, after all. As was mentioned, don't over develop. Grain seems to be more apparent if you do.

 

Dean

[lex_jenkins]

Jack, can you cite any reference showing that the "new" TX is totally different from the "old" version? By most accounts I've read recently (including Kodak itself) the only difference is that production was relocated to another facility. I've used Tri-X for decades and haven't noticed a really significant difference in all that time. I believe the film base these days is a bit different from that used 20 years ago, but that's about it. Even assuming changes in anti-halation and sensitizing dyes, it still shoots an awful lot like Tri-X always has for me.

 

David, if I were going to enlarge my 6x6cm negs beyond, say, 11"x11" and wanted maximum sharpness and minimum grain I'd try Microdol-X or Perceptol. I'd also experiment with various dilutions to strike a balance. I've seen prints made using this combination (6x6cm Tri-X at EI 100-200 in Microdol-X) - they were *very* sharp yet grainless, with lush tonality. Unfortunately I neglected to ask the photographer what dilution he used.

 

If you feel like experimenting to get the best results you might also try A49 from JandC Photo. This is advertised as a modern formulation of Agfa Atomal, an old style fine grain developer. (However, as of today, at least, JandC's website doesn't show whether A49 is currently available.)

 

Some folks will extol Xtol for this purpose. I tried it and wasn't terribly impressed. The grain didn't seem much finer than Tri-X in Rodinal, and less sharp to boot. But wait 'til you hear from folks who've used it much longer and have more experience.

 

While John Reef makes a very good point about tonality of the subject matter affecting apparent grain (it can be rather difficult to achieve a grainless, middling gray sky with Tri-X), I wouldn't avoid using Tri-X for that reason alone. It's an extremely flexible film that responds readily to use with various developers and at various exposure indices.

[severi_salminen]

Actually the question is impossible to answer. "Without losing sharpness" and "getting grainy" is all related not only to print size but the viewing distance and your definition of grainyness and sharpness, and the quality your equipment and methods... A 8x8" print will be very grainy if you allways look it with a loupe. A 40x40" print will be sharp and grainless if you look it from 100 meters. So it all depends.

 

Severi

[jay_de_fehr]

As others have written, if you're concerned only with grain and sharpness, you MIGHT be able to enlarge 10X, but technically, enlarging to any degree will degrade sharpness and increase the appearance of grain. That being said, I personally don't like enlargements of that magnitude, as the tonality and local contrast suffer. I use 4X as my standard maximum for enlarging, but only you can decide what is acceptable for your own work. There are many more factors that contribute to the appearance and impact of a print than just grain and sharpness, and you might be surprised at how enlarging changes the overall feel of an image. Good luck.

[db1]

I should state, I am hoping to get these to 15x15.

[robert_davis2]

"without losing sharpness and getting grainy"

 

You lose some sharpness right at the start. The question isn't when you start losing sharpness but at what point you won't be happy with the loss. The second is also a similar question. What some call grainy others call grainless.

 

Either try it yourself or go look at some prints.

[conrad_hoffman]

If you can't make a decent 15x15" print from a 2 1/4 neg, something is terribly wrong. Sure you'll be able to see some grain- get your nose off the print! If that amount of grain bothers you, either switch to slower film, or make the big leap to 4x5 or 8x10. Probably best to go with 4x5, as you'd still need an enlarger for the 8x10. Another factor is the kind of shot. If you can use a tripod, why not use slower film? If you can't, you won't extract maximum sharpness anyway, and the faster film will actually look sharper because of the slight grain pattern. IMHO, all this stuff matters only to other photographers. The image should be strong enough to distract one from the grain for at least a few seconds ;-)

[db1]

Conrad,

thanks for the response. I do use a tripod and I do use APX100 as my slower film. But I really like the look of Tri-X and was wondering how the group thinks about it.

I have not done much experimenting but that time is coming.

[pat_wilson1]

I have enlarged a 35mm TriX negative to 16x20, but I used PMK. The grain was not only subtile but pleasing. The stain did quite a bit with regard to masking the grain. I guess that really doesn't answer the D-76 part of the question, but I think the answer is "pretty darn big".

[bruce watson]

In general you can enlarge a fast film like Tri-X about 10x before the grain becomes objectionable to critical people (that would be us photographers mostly). Slower films like PF4+ can take about 12x. But... clearly, YMMV. You are asking for a 15x15 print, or about a 6x enlargement. You should be able to do that without any problems at all. I would be extremely surprised if you found the results unacceptable.

 

That said, I just finished hanging an exhibit from the George Eastman House. The exhibit is over 200 images from Vietnam war photographers, all taken in the 1950-1970s, almost all of it 35mm, and most of that Tri-X. I'm sure most of the film was processed in less than ideal conditions, but with the best that was available at the time. The Eastman House produced most of the prints from the original negatives. Some of them (20 or 30, I didn't count) they enlarged by 40x (40x60 inch print).

 

In a 40x enlargement the grain is inescapable, and the print is not as sharp as most people would like. But is it objectionable? I would have thought so before I saw it, but now that I've studied it for a while, I'd have to say no. If you stand a few feet back from it, it's pretty good actually. Clearly, some negatives will do better than others, and some scenes will do better than others. Absolutely, YMMV.

 

Again, I will be quite surprised if you aren't very happy with your 15x15 prints from 6x6 Tri-X negatives. I think you'll find them to be tack sharp and virtually grainless.

[gareth_harper]

Only you can decide what you will be happy with.

I do 12x16 inch prints from tri-x in rodinal. I'd go all the way to 20x16 with some of them if I could.

Often as prints get bigger they look sharper as grain can help sharpness, you can start to lose that fine detail look though.

Meanwhile tri-x is still tri-x.

[scott_walton2]

D76 1:1 is good and will make some fine negatives but if you want even finer

grain (read smoother gradations), get some Divided D76! The smoothness

and almost grain free negs you will get are amazing. 3 minutes Bath A and 3

minutes Bath B and into the fix and what you come out with are negatives that

have great shadow detail and highlights that are developed to their prime and

no further. Truely compensating. You can either mix it up yourself or get it at

Photo Formulary. It works beautifully on all of the "older" emulsions (non t-

grain).

[rothelle]

I make all my prints 16x20 or 20 x 20 using a 645 camera and the film I love the best is Tri-X I use two developers and they are HC-110 or Microdol-X they are both great developers. For the finest grain I use Mircodol-X and if you realy want to blow away some one with a nice 20x20 try it with TMax100 films.

[michael_j._kravit1]

I am in the process of printing a new show that I have been shooting on 400TX. I debated processing in D-DX or some other developer. I ultimatley decided on Rodinal 1:50 to give me the look I wanted.

 

The show is being printed at 16"x16". I can tell you with no uncertainty that the new 400TX has grain that is finer than previous variants. In fact, at 16"x16" the prints are sharp and the grain is barely discernable without being 12" away.

 

I have been shooting Tri-X since 1968 and find 400TX to be the best yet.

 

Making 16x16 prints from 120 400TX is absolutley no problem with respect to grain or sharpness.

 

Last night I processed a few rolls of 400TX in Ilford D-DX for a friend. The grain is barely visible. A great combination if I say so myself. If you are worried about grain, use D-DX, which BTW I find has an EI of 320. SO you get extra speed and fine grain.