Tri-X and reticulation

[mark f]

I never knew what reticulation looked like until this week. I

developed a roll of 35mm TriX (old version) in HC110 and it came out

with a very even fogging and reticulation. The fogging may have

occurred due to multiple trips through the airport x-ray. I thought

that the x-ray might have induced the reticulation too so I just

wrote it off. Then this weekend I developed some sheet TriX (TXP,

new) in HC110 that also showed reticulation and no fog. Same process

both times: 1:31 HC110, water stop, non-hardening fixer in invertable

tanks with fairly constant temperature (everything through wash is

certainly within 10F). The HC110 is relatively new (still amber, 6

months old or so) and my fixer was mixed up about 2 months ago. I've

used this procedure I've used for a few years and this is a new

problem. I'm stumped. I searched previous posts and saw that non-

hardening fixer might have an effect, but it is the same brand and

process I've always used. Any thoughts?

[trooper]

Somewhat related.... I've used HP5+ for many years as a staple in medium format but recently had reason to use a Tri-X 5 pack. I noticed a reticulation-like pattern when first hanging these rolls to dry. When they had fully dried, the appearance was what I would call normal with just a bit more grain than I'm accustomed to with my normal HP5. My procedure is quite meticulous and should avoid any reticulation (and always has). Does anyone know what causes this behavior?

 

Mark, did you notice that the look of reticulation went away when the film dried completely or did it remain? I've changed some lighting in my darkroom in the last year and I had assumed that I just wasn't getting the same room illumination and didn't notice this before. Anyone have some insights on this?

[discpad]

Temperature variation (shock) *can* cause reticulation, as well as high temperature.

[silent1]

I've noticed an appearance with TMY 120 and Fompana 100 sheet film that looks rather like reticulation when not fully dry, also -- a sort of light, foggy appearance that shows texture if I use magnification. On my film, this goes away when the film is fully dry.<p>

 

Your fogging is, as you suspect, possibly due to multiple airport X-rays, though it shouldn't hurt anything other than requiring additional exposure to print and slightly reducing overall contrast.<p>

 

If your reticulation has persisted after complete drying (at least 4 hours in room ambient, or at least 1 hour in a drying cabinet), you should check to be sure you aren't getting hot pulses in your wash water. If you're washing with tap water adjusted for temperature by mixing hot and cold, and especially if you have old plumbing, you could get a pulse of 20 or 30 degrees temperature variation if someone flushes a toilet or runs water in the yard or garden, and if you don't have you hands in the wash water when it happens, you might never notice until/unless your film reticulates.<p>

 

Try washing with bottled, filtered or distilled water, using the water conservation method (per Anchell & Troop):<p>

 

Fill tank, invert 5 times, let stand 5 minutes, and drain.<br>

Fill again, invert 10 times, let stand 5 minutes, and drain.<br>

Fill again, invert 20 times, let stand 5 minutes, and drain.<br>

Rinse with distilled or filtered water treated with surfactant, if desired, and hang to dry.<p>

 

This method will produce an archival wash and use about a liter of distilled or filtered water for a 35 mm roll. As a bonus, all the water will already be at room temperature, so risk of reticulation due to temperature shock is eliminated.

[mark f]

I am pretty sure it is not thermal shock. I've done some pretty nasty things to film temperature-wise (by accident) without problems. I did not notice the reticulation until after it was dry. It is a very fine, but definate pattern.....sort of like when a car windshield breaks but holds together. Could the fixer have anything to do with it?

[bjarke_schulin]

I have had the same problem with one film, my fixer was too old.

I would recomend, you mixed some new fixer and tried again.. It shouldn't be the x-ray, I have had tri-x in the x-ray two times with out any problem.

regards

Bjarke,

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Mark,

 

The old Tri-X was notoriously prone to reticulation and one of the things they did with the new version was to improve the hardening.

 

As for the wash sequence, Anchell and Troop got it wrong. You DO NOT need the 5 minute soak between inversions. This wash sequence was designed and thoroughly researched by Ilford, and their response to the Anchell/Troop recommendation was "Why?"

 

What makes it worse is that A+T specifically say that the 5 minute rest is needed and that the versions that appear elsewhere without it are wrong. This is only one of a number of unsupported (and insupportable) assertions they make, which greatly reduce the trustworthiness of a generally very useful book.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

[chris_waller]

With modern emulsions it is difficult to get reticulation by temperature change. Change from alkaline to acid environment is more likely to cause it. In twenty years of film processing, sometimes under less than ideal conditions, I have never had any occurrence of reticulation. There were some posts about a year ago re: reticulation and Tri-X just about the time Kodak moved production to a new plant. Could the film have been made around that time?

[john solem]

I was the original poster of the reticulation discussion a year ago mentioned above (what a

great

memory you have!). Here's the link:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004fIr