Old Tri-X, new development times
J D B
processing, I pulled the latest Kodak data from the website and
noticed that the development times are vastly different from the last
time I developed any Tri-X!!! .
I know that the film is now different. What I am not sure of, is if
the film I shot is the new stuff. I left the boxes in the trash (in
Germany) and only have the exposed rolls. I am "almost" certain that
it is the old Tri-x, but are there any identifiers that I can use to
tell for sure?
My default is to use D-76 at 1:1, since those times have changed only
slightly. I was planning on using HC 110, but the times are really
different!
The Tmax developer is the same (at least at 68 degrees), but I've
never used it on Tri-x. All comments appreciated.
Thanks! Sorry if this has been asked before, I did try a search.
David
Sam G
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html ). Look up Tri-X and you will
find reproductions of the labels of the old and new Tri-X. At the time when
there was still a lot of old and new Tri-X around, the discussions on this
site and others seemed to drift toward using the same dev. times for the new
as you used to use for the old. In any case, this site will give you dev
times as well as the visual key to separating the old from the new.
Sam
jjs
"Sam G" <nospams...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:GRO_c.12635$FV3....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
The Massive Development Chart is a bin of urban trash.
John McGraw
Hay Jorde
This sounds like the perfect situation to develop by inspection.
However, I sincerely believe that to any chance of success w/
development by inspection, one has to learn by experience. It cannot
be transmitted by reading or having someone tell how to do it. I
suggest you find a lab that regularly does it. There used to be @
least one custom lab that make a practice of B&W processing by
inspection, on request, & for mucho $$$$ of course. They used a
surprisingly bright green safelight. Scissors & extra reels @ hand.
Kept 2 or so different developers, plus H2O, set out (1 of which was
Dektol), ready to dunk the film to control the density & contrast. It
wasn't cheap, but effective. The key was this miserable, grouchy,
European educated, master photographer who had the know how &
experience to make all this work. I would imagine there are other labs
that do the same thing. I liked to think I could do or learn to do
just about anything photographically. But I wouldn't touch this one w/
a 10-foot pole if failure were not an option. If these rolls are
important enough, that is what you should do. Or consider it an
exercise in learning to develop by inspection, & don't worry if the
results aren't good.
Good luch, John
LEDMRVM
>The Massive Development Chart is a bin of urban trash.
>
What is your reasoning behind the quoted statement? The times given are
starting points (as are all developing charts including Kodak's).
Ed
jjs
news:20040906070932...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> >
>>The Massive Development Chart is a bin of urban trash.
>
> What is your reasoning behind the quoted statement? The times given are
> starting points (as are all developing charts including Kodak's).
True, they are starting points, and you are fortunate that old Tri-X times
are well known and worked out. However, if you look at the massive
development times for all the other films, you will find they are often
simple minded extrapolations of factory figures, some so far out that they
are incredible, some are the product of impressionistic guesses, and others
are self-reported as in "this was good for me" whether the submitter ever
tried it or not. That said, it's furthermore incredible that almost any of
the times given produce a negative that newbies will say are "good" because
they are uninformed or just happy something "came out" - even when they
didn't.
An aside, if you are processing expired Tri-X, even if it was frozen, you
probably have to make adjustments for contrast-loss and possibly fog.
LEDMRVM
>are well known and worked out. However, if you look at the massive
>development times for all the other films, you will find they are often
>simple minded extrapolations of factory figures, some so far out that they
>are incredible, some are the product of impressionistic guesses, and others
>are self-reported as in "this was good for me" whether the submitter ever
>tried it or not. That said, it's furthermore incredible that almost any of
>the times given produce a negative that newbies will say are "good" because
>they are uninformed or just happy something "came out" - even when they
>didn't.
>
>An aside, if you are processing expired Tri-X, even if it was frozen, you
>probably have to make adjustments for contrast-loss and possibly fog.
Which, as I see it is still better than a bin of urban trash. With all due
respect (whatever that does or doesn't mean) your blanket statement was far too
simplistic.
I worked out my old Tri-X times years ago.
Ed
jjs
> Which, as I see it is still better than a bin of urban trash. With all due
> respect (whatever that does or doesn't mean) your blanket statement was
> far too
> simplistic.
So take your chances. It makes no difference to me.
> I worked out my old Tri-X times years ago.
So why did you even inquire?
LEDMRVM
>
>So why did you even inquire?
>
>
I didn't inquire. I responded from a different point of views from yours. It is
a message board.
Ed
Richard Knoppow
"J D B" <jo...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:68e80b08.04090...@posting.google.com...
Call Kodak's customer service department and ask if the
paper backing was changed along with the packaging. In the
USA the number is 1 800 242 2424, ask for extension 19 which
is the professional division.
Its hard to know just what accounts for the differences
in the development charts. Supposedly the new version of the
film is more static resistant which suggests the overcoating
has been changed. That would affect induction time, i.e.,
the time between application of the developer and the first
appearance of the image. It is also likely due to correction
of some errors in the original measurements, I know there
were some in other films. In any case, the customer service
group can help.
You probably know that the old data sheets are still on
the Kodak web site.
I've found, in general, that the time-temperature charts
are pretty accurate. They are written for the contrast index
suitable for contact printing and diffusion enlarging. Kodak
specifies this and has instructions on how to adjust for
lower contrast for condenser enlargers if desired. Not all
development charts list the contrast index they are intended
to achieve.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Michael Scarpitti
From what I have been able to gather, the new coating facility employs
a different gelatine composition. The films are supposedly
better-hardened too.
J D B
> http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html ). Look up Tri-X and you will
>
> Sam
Thanks, Sam! The answer to the question! I really appreciate it!
JDB
Jazztptman
cassette or the 120/220 backing paper. The old film was known as Tri-X 400,
Tri-X Pan 400, or Tri-X Professional 320,T-MAX 100.
The newer films list the speed first, such as 400TX, 320TX Pro, 100T-MAX, etc.
Bernie