Kodak Tri-X Pan ISO 400

I

Ian-Barber

Admin
Registered User
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
1,711
Is this the same as the Kodak Tri-X 400?.

Dated: 1991 - Any advice on development, HC110 or Pyrocat HD?

IMG_1381.JPG
 
Probably not exactly the same film as TX400 but hard to tell because "Tri-X" had a number of formulations over the years and also varied somewhat by format.

It the box is marked ISO 400, I'd expose it at ISO 200 and develop for 7min in HC-110 Dil. B agitating initially for 30 seconds and then 5 seconds every 30 seconds thereafter. However, film this old is more likely to be ISO 320, so check the box. If so, expose at ASA 160 and develop as above.

I've also had very good look with semistand processing old Tri-X. You'll need a Nikkor stainless reel and a way to suspend it off the bottom of the tank - an inverted small funnel will do. I expose at full ISO and dilute Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:250. I do an initial prewet of 3 mins, followed by 2min continuous agitation in the developer, let it stand, 10seconds of agitation at 31min, pull and stop/fix at 60min.

Alternatively, you can follow the same seminstand regimen but use D-23 1:3 instead.

You will likely see some fog with any of these developers, but the Pyrocat will show the least amount of visible grain when printed/scanned. The D-23 will probably produce the least amount of fog.

I have processed Tri-X from the 1970s this way and gotten quite reasonable results. The one caveat is if the film has been subjected to wild temperature swing, it can incur mechanical failures like emulsion chipping.
 
Thank you @thronobulax A few options there to test. HC110 might be the easiest to try just to get a feel of the condition of the film. I have about 18 rolls of this stuff so fingers crossed.
 
HC100 will give less base fog and better contrast. Avoid D-23 as it is a low contrast developer.

Ian
 
Ian Grant said:
Avoid D-23 as it is a low contrast developer.

Ian
Click to expand...


It's all in how it's used, Ian. D-23 isn't inherently lower contrast, it's just that it's default use was to use it as such - well, more properly as a compensating developer.

D-23 is perfectly capable of normal and higher CIs when applied properly. Below, are several examples in D-23 1:9 + lye, semistand processed. There is no lack of contrast. It is also entirely possible to get good contrast with conventional development by diluting and agitating appropriately. For example, D-23 stock agitated continuously or with greater than normal frequency should give good contrast. That said, my observation is that MQ developers definitely develop contrast more aggressively, all things considered, but that's what I don't like about them. It's harder to hold long SBRs ("harder" = "requires more care" not that it cannot be done) with MQ devs in my experience.


Edit: In fairness D-23+lye really isn't D-23 any more ;)
 
Last edited:
thronobulax said:
You'll need a Nikkor stainless reel and a way to suspend it off the bottom of the tank - an inverted small funnel will do.
Click to expand...

I'm curious why you need to suspend the stainless reel off the bottom of the tank. I never do. Am I missing a trick?
 
Nas said:
I'm curious why you need to suspend the stainless reel off the bottom of the tank. I never do. Am I missing a trick?
Click to expand...

What I have found is that raising the bottom of sheets/reels off the bottom of the tank significantly reduces the risk of bromide drag or other streaking induced by low agitation. My hypothesis is that doing this allows these nasty byproducts to be drawn to the bottom of the tank by gravity.

I cannot actually prove this of course. What I do know is that raising reels/sheets above tank bottom has essentially eliminated any streaking from my semistand low agitation development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top