Ilford DD-X and TXP 320

[rj__]

Could someone suggest a developing time for this combination at EI

320 and 20 degrees Celsius? The Ilford fact sheets don't cover this

film. I'd also be interested in comments on EI for TXP 320 (aka Tri-

X Professional). Thanks.

[lex_jenkins]

A Google search of this site (see the "Search" option toward the top left of every photo.net page) will help you find previous threads discussing the second part of your question.

 

You might phrase the search term as

 

TXP+EI

 

or variations as you can think of them.

 

The Massive Dev Chart at digitaltruth.com has a long list of recommended processing times for many combinations of films and developers, including various EI's.

[rj__]

Lex,

 

Thanks, but I checked this site and www.digitaltruth.com before asking the question and your statement that this site or digital truth answers my questions is wrong and therefore gratuitously unhelpful, especially coming from a moderator who is supposed to know what is an is not available in the archives.

 

On this site, there is very little about TXP, nothing about its combination with DD-X and, equally importantly, what is available does not take into account the suggestion that this film has been reformulated.

 

As for www.digitaltruth.com, there is information on the prior forumulation of TXP, but nothing at EI 320 and, in relation to the new formulation, nothing about using DD-X.

 

If you have nothing useful to say, perhaps you should say nothing.

[rj__]

In other words Lex, as someone who contributes money to this site, it is not obvious to me why some moderator would tell me to take a hike to some other site, especially one (www.digitaltruth.com) that does not have the information that I am looking for. Even if that site did have a number, I'd be more interested in narrative information from someone who has processed the film. By the way, two days ago I also asked this question of Ilford Technical Services, and I am still waiting for an answer. Indeed, the lack of response is why I had the audacity to ask the question of my fellow participants in www.photo.net. It did not occur to me that asking a polite question would result in a completely non-informative, but pontificating, response from a photo.net moderator.

 

As for the second issue, I did not ask a question, I simply said that any observations (a question that particularly interests me in relation to a reformulation) would be welcome. Sorry that that led you to instruct me to go to the archives, where in fact the posts are about old TXP and are mostly about people who want to go on about how it isn't really Tri-X at all.

 

Meanwhile, if someone else wants to answer the question I asked, I'd appreciate an answer, preferably one that is actually responsive to the question.

[john_shriver]

If you take the ratio of Kodak's D-76 times for 400TX and 320TX, and apply that ratio to the Ilford time for DD-X on Tri-X, you should be close. (Or use the ratio of the HC-110 times.) I'd aver that 400TX and 320TX are similar enough films that you can assume rather "linear" interactions of film and developer.

 

The general comment here in the archives is that people's times for Tri-X have proven completely appropriate for 400TX. The change was much less than Kodak made it out to be. Put another way, the difference between the times Tri-X and 400TX need are less than the slop in most people's B&W processing.

 

Take it easy on Lex, he's busy as the moderator, and probably didn't look hard enough at the Massive Development Chart to see that the Tri-X Pro/320TX times are probably wrong, since they are almost all the same as the 400TX times. I looked, and decided not to answer with that pointer. But I decided to answer when Lex was unfairly dumped on.

 

The other point, which is quite obvious in the archives, is that you really have to develop YOUR OWN times. Your exposure meter doesn't read the same as mine, your thermometer isn't the same as mine, your water isn't the same as mine, your tank may not be the same as mine, your 10 seconds of inversions aren't the same as mine. (Consider it non-Euclidean photography, replacing parallel with equal.)

 

Moreover, you never mentioned if you are developing for condenser enlarger, diffusion enlarger, or scanning.

[__jon__]

>RJ _ , may 19, 2004; 07:46 p.m.

 

>If you have nothing useful to say, perhaps you should say nothing.

 

Looks like someone's brat needs a spanking. Lex is one of the better moderators on this site and he was making an honest attempt at helping you. If you can't grasp that, maybe re-doing kindergarten will fix that pathetic attitude of yours.

[lex_jenkins]

To respond to the second part of your original question, the following threads contain specific references to EI's for TXP, which other members have found to be appropriate for their purposes:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00890W

 

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

 

From other sites:

 

http://www.f32.net/LFarchive/msg00638.html

 

When development data is absent for a given combination of film and developer I come up with my own times through a series of clip tests. This is convenient enough to do with 35mm but requires a little more effort with medium format films. And I'll extrapolate information from known data for films and developers that are as close as possible to the materials I plan to use.

[mike_kearney]

I've had very good results developing TXP 320 (in 120/220 formats) in DD-X for 8 minutes @68 degrees using Ilford's standard developing process. Especially fine combination for children's portraits.

[mike_kearney]

I should add that I use a cold light on my enlarger and use Ilford's Warmtone FB paper. My EI is 320 for studio work using a flash meter.

[rj__]

Mike,

 

Thanks very much. That's what I was looking for.

 

John,

 

I'm well aware of the fact that EI is personal. That's why I said, as an ancillary matter, that I'd be interested in any "comments" on it.

 

Lex,

 

Sorry if I misinterpreted you. In my experience, comments to the effect that somoeone should "go to the archives" or "go elsewhere" are essentially dismissive and are intended to suggest that the questioner hasn't done his homework. Of course, implicit in the homework concept is the idea that photo.net is supposed to be some kind of last resort.

 

In this case, I did in fact look elsewhere and the answer to my basic question was neither in the archives nor on digitaltruth.com. In any event, I don't follow digitaltruth. I know little about that site, I have no idea where their numbers come from or whether they are reliable, and I really don't care. I use photo.net, which is why I support it.

[lex_jenkins]

I never intend suggestions to research the archives of photo.net or other websites as dismissive. It's simply a suggestion I offer when I don't have direct experience with a particular combination of materials.

 

You might be surprised at the number of participants on photo.net, especially newcomers, who don't realize that the great majority of threads are saved for future reference and that many questions have been asked and answered before. If I wasn't in such a hurry (I'm preparing to leave town to help with my mom's nursing needs, the second time I've done this for a relative this year), I'd have checked your photo.net history and would have discovered that you've been a member here for about two years. So you certainly are familiar with the archives.

 

At the risk of straining for an analogy, it's rather like walking up to an unmarked door in Paris and asking a fellow if he knows anything about the city. He thumbs toward the nondescript door. You enter and discover a rich library full of books about everything imaginable.

 

Well... almost everything.

 

I'd also have done a quick check to determine whether the information that I assumed would be in the archives was, in fact, in the archives.

 

In this case, no, you're correct, I wasn't aware of the relative dearth of information about TXP, both on photo.net and the rest of the web. Tho' I didn't search the rec.photo newsgroups (I don't like to get my shoes muddy), after about 30 minutes of searching I'd found only a tiny handful of references. It appears that some photographers are using the stuff; they just aren't writing about their experiences.

 

Perhaps after you've experimented with this particular combination of film and developer you'll share your findings with us.

[rj__]

Lex,

 

I got set off because of the instruction about how to find the search button and how to do a search on Google. I thought that it was smart-ass. I now realize that you were trying to be helpful. I apologize unequivocably. I also forgot about your earlier post, which I did read but forgot about, about your family situation.

 

As for Paris, I used to live there and I go back a few times a year. I understand your analogy. One day, I'd love to show you a few of the places that I know there, and I'd love to learn about a few of the places there that you know.