tri-x & hp5 in xtol

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread

i've been using tri-x in d-76 for a while now (hp5 too), but i'm just starting to try xtol too. anyone willing to share their development times for these two films? i've read kodak's j-109 file (on xtol), but i was wondering if i should increase the development time a bit over what's suggested in the file. oh-i usually rate the films straight at 400, though sometimes at 320. thanks in advance.

-- kim sherman (ksherman@cottenmusic.com), June 03, 2000

Answers

Kim, the development times suggested in the Kodak literature are for negatives that are to be printed with enlargers that have a diffusion light source. Negatives that are to be printed with an enlarger that has a condenser light source require a less dense negative, and so Kodak recommends 20% less development time than what is listed in their tables. I have found their recommendeed times are right on the money for diffusion light source enlargers.

Your best option, if your current negatives print OK, is to adjust the development time with XTOL to the same extent (%) as you have diverged from the Kodak recomended time for D76.

Eilert Anders

-- Eilert Anders (eilert@dav.com), June 06, 2000.


I think you should pick one developer and one film first of all. Tri-X is very much like HP5+. They are conventional film, push really well to 3200 and usually cheaper than tabular grain films. The one major difference is that HP5+ is the same emulsion in 35mm, 120 and 220. Tri-X has at least two different versions TX and TXP. Tri-X(TX) is the film loved by the photojournalists the world over. Pro Tri-X is a different film which has a different film curve and is only availible in 220 and Sheet Film. Due to the differences in film curves different gradation happens. Plain Tri-X has a shoulder while Professional Tri-X has a straight shoulder. This means Tri-X response to highlights tails off in hope of making highlights printable. Pro Tri-X has a straight shoulder which keeps on going which can lead to unprintable highlights. It also has a long toe that helps with underexposure latitude. Since there are different versions of Tri-X I said the hell with Kodak's Marketing Dorks, I will just use HP5+. I picked HP5+ because it is a little cheaper and works well with PMK Pyro. When it comes to your film developer they are very similiar. Xtol is an update of D-76. However D-76 is the STANDARD black and white film developer. Xtol is believe to offer slighter better speed, sharpness and grain should be the same. An interesting side bar is D-76H is the recommend version of D-76. Kodak version has various additives to help with its usage which makes it slightly different than the original. It formulation is also suspect because it pH changes in storage which can affect it performance. D-76H takes care of these problems. ID-11 from Ilford is actually the same formula as D-76 without the additives. Which were kept out by packing it into two packages which are than mixed together. I picked Xtol using it diluted 1:2 one-shot. While you can re-use I want consistent results therefore one shot and out it goes. I've used Kodak recommend times but shake my tank differently. These are only stating points. They can get you okay negatives. They will print fine. However you should get The Practical Zone System by Chris Johnson or New Zone System manual by White, Zakia and Todd. These give you an non-sensitometry method to calibrate your film. While less objective they can give you just as much useful information through experience without an expensive sensitometer and densitometer. I own Davis' Beyond the Zone System book which explains sensitometry. However I HATE his writing style. It not so complex but his writing makes it so. Another iportant book you SHOULD buy is the Film Developing Cookbook by Anchell and Troop. It has a lot of useful information. A lot of what I said came from that book. If my house was burning down I would save this book before my cameras! In Q and A discussion board posts by John Hicks and Dan Smith are useful. They have used the developers and film you have trying. However I have to say I've picked HP5+ and Xtol 1:2. Two thinks to look out for with Xtol is Solution A should be a powder which looks like sand when you open it. If not water might have gotten to it. Kodak quality control sometimes is lacking. Another thing to do is pick one film and try it different developers. Xtol and D-76 are alike. However Rodinal and D-76 are not. Rodinal is grainy yet sharp. However it gradation is beautiful. It a unique look. Another one to try is PMK Pyro. I must admit I still calibrating this developer. However the GREAT gradation in work by Edward Weston(User of Pyro) and Gordon Hutchings(inventor of PMK Pyro formula) is proof of this developer cool look.

-- David Payumo (dpayumo@home.com), June 07, 2000.

eilert anders wrote:

>Kim, the development times suggested in the Kodak literature are for >negatives that are to be printed with enlargers that have a diffusion >light source.

i had NO idea this is the case (though perhaps i should have figured it out). thanks for telling me!

>Negatives that are to be printed with an enlarger that >has a condenser light source require a less dense negative, and so >Kodak recommends 20% less development time than what is listed in >their tables. I have found their recommendeed times are right on the >money for diffusion light source enlargers.

ah...that explains it, then. i'm a newbie at developing/printing (made my first print last november 14), so i'm still finding my way on even the basics. fortunately, i've been able to make some prints that please me very much, but as i read what your reply to my question, i see now why my negs seems so dense. they're very definitely printable (including the shadow areas), but i see now that i should indeed be reducing the time.

>Your best option, if your current negatives print OK, is to adjust >the development time with XTOL to the same extent (%) as you have >diverged from the Kodak recomended time for D76.

will do. thanks again (to both you and david) for your reply. i tried writing you an email offline, but the message kept coming back as undeliverable--hence my reply to the list.

kim

-- kim sherman (ksherman@cottenmusic.com), June 08, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ