Tri-X developer

Tri-X does pretty well in most developers. In some ways I'd imagine it was a benchmark film in that respect (although the formulation has changed a lot compared to old school, journalists Tri-X).
Depends what sort of look you want to get from it, really.
 
Never used Tri-X film but read that it will push with good results in HC-110 so was going to pick some up and have a play.
 
Mel

About twelve comments from the bottom of the list he says he rated Tri-X at 200 ISO in Perceptol which sounds about right.


"hi meyer! i shot at 320 but the negs were a little thin, so i always shoot at 200 now if i'm developing it in perceptol. Generally speaking, I'll shoot Tri-X at 320 if it's being developed in a standard developer like rodinal or HC110."

C
 
walsh said:
Rodinal, 1:50 is my personal choice.
Click to expand...

I've done alot of that and stand/semi-stand and I find the negatives look a little flat and just very 'grey' and the blacks are a bit crappy for lack of a better explanation. Even the highlights end up grey. Can't beat the simplicity of the whole process though!
 
MindofMel said:
I've done alot of that and stand/semi-stand and I find the negatives look a little flat and just very 'grey' and the blacks are a bit crappy for lack of a better explanation. Even the highlights end up grey. Can't beat the simplicity of the whole process though!
Click to expand...

Never tried stand tbh!
 
XTOL, D76 and Diafine. I only ever push with Tri-X, all three developers have given me sweet results.
 
Hi there,

Been using tri x with Rodinal at 1+25 and have been very happy with the results, prints form these negatives are here: http://alexabrahamsphotography.blogspot.co.uk

I have also used tri x with ID-11 but wasn't as pleased. There wasn't as much sharpness and actuance was much lower.

Pushing in rodinal will result in more defined and larger grain but I like this so I push to 1600 most of the time with 1+50 dilution, still really nice results.

Hope this helps
 
abrose123 said:
Hi there,

Been using tri x with Rodinal at 1+25 and have been very happy with the results, prints form these negatives are here: http://alexabrahamsphotography.blogspot.co.uk

I have also used tri x with ID-11 but wasn't as pleased. There wasn't as much sharpness and actuance was much lower.

Pushing in rodinal will result in more defined and larger grain but I like this so I push to 1600 most of the time with 1+50 dilution, still really nice results.

Hope this helps
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Alex.

Alot of great shots there! The larger grain gives it a really traditional look - like the photojournalist snaps of old.
 
Mel, you seem to be heavily judging based on flickr/internet images - just a word of warning, what you are often seeing (as much as the film and developer) is just the output of a scanner, a post-processing program and jpeg algorithms. For instance, the Plustek 35mm scanners have been known to exacerbate grain slightly, regardless of the combination of film+dev. The only way to really judge a purely film + developer combination is with a negative and a loupe, or by printing it (and even then there are plenty of variables that affect the end result).

D76 is cheap and is, in many ways, a benchmark developer. Start with that, and then try maybe XTOL or a liquid concentrate if you aren't happy with D76. Really no need to overthink these things.
 
abrose123 said:
Hi there,

Been using tri x with Rodinal at 1+25 and have been very happy with the results, prints form these negatives are here: http://alexabrahamsphotography.blogspot.co.uk

I have also used tri x with ID-11 but wasn't as pleased. There wasn't as much sharpness and actuance was much lower.

Pushing in rodinal will result in more defined and larger grain but I like this so I push to 1600 most of the time with 1+50 dilution, still really nice results.

Hope this helps
Click to expand...

Nice blog! :thumbs:
 
freecom2 said:
Mel, you seem to be heavily judging based on flickr/internet images - just a word of warning, what you are often seeing (as much as the film and developer) is just the output of a scanner, a post-processing program and jpeg algorithms. For instance, the Plustek 35mm scanners have been known to exacerbate grain slightly, regardless of the combination of film+dev. The only way to really judge a purely film + developer combination is with a negative and a loupe, or by printing it (and even then there are plenty of variables that affect the end result).
Click to expand...


Very aware of this J. I ran a graphic design company for 4 years - I'm very very proficient in Photoshop and the like. Quite often, I look at images and can deduce what is likely to have been done to them. That aside - post-processing can only do so much. You can sharpen and edit until the kings come home, but if the grain is large and intrusive, or details lost, that will be a mother to deal with in PP so the baseline film and development need to be of a certain standard. A clean, and detailed negative will always likely to leave you in better stead. The same way, a grainy negative if that's the look you want is easier to establish earlier on the process than to try and 'fake' in PP.

Trying every film and developer combination, unfortunately is something that my funds don't allow for - so using a law of averages across images on flickr etc, looking at famous images, and a pinch of salt with people's past experiences posted online are the best tools I have in establishing a starting point and at the same time being economical with experimentation!
 
That's precisely it... almost every combination of modern developer and modern <ISO800 film will offer you a clean, detailed negative.

For the most part, any grainy negative you are seeing is the result of pushing/underexposure, a not particularly fine-grained developer (Rodinal), or fast film.

Small differences in shadow and highlight detail, and whether they develop at full speed, are all that really separate most standard off-the-shelf developers. Some give a slightly different look to others, but nothing compared to the differences in emulsion (and modifying developing times/technique).

Again, Tri-X has gone through several formulation changes anyway. I'm only saying all of this because I tore my hair out with every nuance of every possible developer, and it was pointless, because your own developer of choice is such a subjective thing - the reasons why I like T-Max Dev, why Lloyd like Diafine etc.
 
It's been a very long time since I developed my own films, a little over 40 years I suppose, but I remember Tri-X in D76 worked well. I think I used Microphen (which I probably bought for FP4) too, but I can't recall how successful that was, and I don't know if it's still available.
 
Hey thanks for the feedback on the blog MindofMel and Fruitflakes! Sorry I could only give you advice on two developers.
Freecom2 is right- about four of the photographs are scanned negatives using a Plustek scanner which does seem to make things more grainy and the rest are scanned prints.

I hope D76 and Perceptol go well for you, I'd love to see the results with Tri-X and these developers.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top