TXP + D-76 times

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:01:31 GMT, Kevin
wrote:

There are markings on the edge that say Kodak 320TXP. I examined two
negatives, one that was done for 6 minutes and the other done for 9
minutes. The lettering is lighter on the 6 minute one. But, neither is
completely black. I'm going to pick up some HC-110 to day and give it
a try.

Thanks again,
Kevin

Glad my suggestion helped out.

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:38:59 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:

Robert Vervoordt wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 13:50:57 GMT, Kevin
wrote:


According to the data on the package of D76, the development time for
320Tri-x (TXP) using stock solution at 68 degrees is 9 minutes. I've
seen 6 min. published elsewhere. However, even with 9 mins. my
negatives are about 2 stops under exposed. I'm real curious what kind
of times others are using with this combination.

BTW, I'm certain that my shutter and meter and not the problem. I've
been shooting Velvia with no problem. If I have a camera problem I'd
know quickly.

Thanks,
Kevin


After reviewing this thread, to date, I have one suggestion, if it is
a possibilty.

With 35mm and rollfilm there are light struck edge numbers and film
identification markings. If these are fully developed and the images
weak, this would indicate underexposure. If the edge markings are
weak, as wel as the image, this would indicate underdevelopment.

As I haven't used sheet film in decades, I can't say wheter or not
they have usable edge markings. If they do, your on your way. If
not, then you're going to have to answer the question some other way.

Main problem with this suggestion, Robert, is that the edge markings
aren't subject to any significant exposure control; I've seen them quite
weak on some film, and full black on other film, all with normal
development (negatives that printed and/or scanned well). No edge
markings at all is a strong indicator of under- or no development, but
beyond that you really can't draw much conclusion from the edge markings.

And in any case, I don't recall seeing edge markings on sheet film, even
from Kodak. It would surely elicit complaints from LF photographers who
like to (contact) print the whole film, including the rebate with the
silhouette of the holder or film sheath...

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

"Kevin" wrote in message
...
According to the data on the package of D76, the
development time for
320Tri-x (TXP) using stock solution at 68 degrees is 9
minutes. I've
seen 6 min. published elsewhere. However, even with 9
mins. my
negatives are about 2 stops under exposed. I'm real
curious what kind
of times others are using with this combination.

BTW, I'm certain that my shutter and meter and not the
problem. I've
been shooting Velvia with no problem. If I have a camera
problem I'd
know quickly.

Thanks,
Kevin


I just checked the revised times on the Kodak web site,
they are still the same for Tri-X sheet film. My experience
in the past is that the peculiar upswept curve of this film
(and the old Plus-X sheet film also) results in rather thin
looking negatives even though the contrast index is what is
expected; the negatives look under developed but print OK.
The idea of this stuff is the produce very bright
highlights. The contrast in the shadow areas can become very
low especially wehre a high flare lens is used.
The advise about edge markings is good although it shows
only gross errors. If overall contrast is OK when printing
but shadows are either too dark or low in contrast it can be
somewhat remedied by increasing exposure by a stop or so.
However, because the contrast of the film increases
continuously with exposure, this will not ever push the
shadows into a straight line area of the curve, with higher
contrast, because there isn't any straight line area.
Tri-X sheet film is good for specific types of images but
IMHO is not a good general purpose film. Its hard to know
what is still available now. My favorite was Agfa film but I
am not sure they still make it in sheets and Ilford is very
questionable at the moment. Fuji Neopan 400 might be a good
choice or T-Max 400. The latter is a short toe film with a
long straight line section. Contrary to it reputation it
does not produce bullet-proof highlights, it only requires
care in processing since it is more sensitive to errors in
time, temperature, or agitation than most other films.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

Richard,

I seem to be coming to the same conclusion. I should probably create
a graph and see what the curve actually is. I do find it odd that I
have to overexpose by 2 stops to get a zone 1 density that is .1 above
base plus fog. I took a couple of shots indoors of some guitars in
artificial light. One was overexposed by one stop and the other was
two stops. I'm not good at evaluating them yet. I was going to print
them this morning only to find my enlarger bulbs were dead. Aparently
the enlarger got left on. So, I'll have to wait a week to print them
since I have to order new bulbs. I'm expecting to find the contrast to
be a little weak based on the density tests I've done on test
negatives. However, maybe they will print just fine.

I've used TMax 400 in the past. I just seem to like the results I've
gotten from Tri-X a little more.

BTW, I did try using HC-110 to see if it made any difference. It
didn't really effect my tests. So, either I don't know what I'm doing
or I have a bad batch of film. Most likely, I don't know what I'm
doing.

Anyway, I appreciate all the help from everyone. I can't believe what
a response I got.

Thanks,
Kevin Kemp

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:46:12 -0700, "Richard Knoppow"
wrote:


"Kevin" wrote in message
.. .
According to the data on the package of D76, the
development time for
320Tri-x (TXP) using stock solution at 68 degrees is 9
minutes. I've
seen 6 min. published elsewhere. However, even with 9
mins. my
negatives are about 2 stops under exposed. I'm real
curious what kind
of times others are using with this combination.

BTW, I'm certain that my shutter and meter and not the
problem. I've
been shooting Velvia with no problem. If I have a camera
problem I'd
know quickly.

Thanks,
Kevin


I just checked the revised times on the Kodak web site,
they are still the same for Tri-X sheet film. My experience
in the past is that the peculiar upswept curve of this film
(and the old Plus-X sheet film also) results in rather thin
looking negatives even though the contrast index is what is
expected; the negatives look under developed but print OK.
The idea of this stuff is the produce very bright
highlights. The contrast in the shadow areas can become very
low especially wehre a high flare lens is used.
The advise about edge markings is good although it shows
only gross errors. If overall contrast is OK when printing
but shadows are either too dark or low in contrast it can be
somewhat remedied by increasing exposure by a stop or so.
However, because the contrast of the film increases
continuously with exposure, this will not ever push the
shadows into a straight line area of the curve, with higher
contrast, because there isn't any straight line area.
Tri-X sheet film is good for specific types of images but
IMHO is not a good general purpose film. Its hard to know
what is still available now. My favorite was Agfa film but I
am not sure they still make it in sheets and Ilford is very
questionable at the moment. Fuji Neopan 400 might be a good
choice or T-Max 400. The latter is a short toe film with a
long straight line section. Contrary to it reputation it
does not produce bullet-proof highlights, it only requires
care in processing since it is more sensitive to errors in
time, temperature, or agitation than most other films.

Kevin wrote:

Richard,

I seem to be coming to the same conclusion. I should probably create
a graph and see what the curve actually is. I do find it odd that I
have to overexpose by 2 stops to get a zone 1 density that is .1 above
base plus fog. I took a couple of shots indoors of some guitars in
artificial light. One was overexposed by one stop and the other was
two stops.

While I'm not a tri-x shooter, it's not unusual to rate film
speed (effective speed) 1/3 to 1/2 the ISO speed and develop
less. However the old tri-x processing times were less than for
new tri-x (i.e., there was an _increase_ in the development time
from 8 minutes to 9 minutes in D76 stock) So in your case one
might try rating the film at 200 (as many do) and developing for
longer, perhaps 10 minutes.

just my 2 cents.


I'm not good at evaluating them yet. I was going to print
them this morning only to find my enlarger bulbs were dead. Aparently
the enlarger got left on. So, I'll have to wait a week to print them
since I have to order new bulbs. I'm expecting to find the contrast to
be a little weak based on the density tests I've done on test
negatives. However, maybe they will print just fine.

I've used TMax 400 in the past. I just seem to like the results I've
gotten from Tri-X a little more.

BTW, I did try using HC-110 to see if it made any difference. It
didn't really effect my tests. So, either I don't know what I'm doing
or I have a bad batch of film. Most likely, I don't know what I'm
doing.

Anyway, I appreciate all the help from everyone. I can't believe what
a response I got.

Thanks,
Kevin Kemp

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 15:46:12 -0700, "Richard Knoppow"
wrote:


"Kevin" wrote in message
.. .
According to the data on the package of D76, the
development time for
320Tri-x (TXP) using stock solution at 68 degrees is 9
minutes. I've
seen 6 min. published elsewhere. However, even with 9
mins. my
negatives are about 2 stops under exposed. I'm real
curious what kind
of times others are using with this combination.

BTW, I'm certain that my shutter and meter and not the
problem. I've
been shooting Velvia with no problem. If I have a camera
problem I'd
know quickly.

Thanks,
Kevin


I just checked the revised times on the Kodak web site,
they are still the same for Tri-X sheet film. My experience
in the past is that the peculiar upswept curve of this film
(and the old Plus-X sheet film also) results in rather thin
looking negatives even though the contrast index is what is
expected; the negatives look under developed but print OK.
The idea of this stuff is the produce very bright
highlights. The contrast in the shadow areas can become very
low especially wehre a high flare lens is used.
The advise about edge markings is good although it shows
only gross errors. If overall contrast is OK when printing
but shadows are either too dark or low in contrast it can be
somewhat remedied by increasing exposure by a stop or so.
However, because the contrast of the film increases
continuously with exposure, this will not ever push the
shadows into a straight line area of the curve, with higher
contrast, because there isn't any straight line area.
Tri-X sheet film is good for specific types of images but
IMHO is not a good general purpose film. Its hard to know
what is still available now. My favorite was Agfa film but I
am not sure they still make it in sheets and Ilford is very
questionable at the moment. Fuji Neopan 400 might be a good
choice or T-Max 400. The latter is a short toe film with a
long straight line section. Contrary to it reputation it
does not produce bullet-proof highlights, it only requires
care in processing since it is more sensitive to errors in
time, temperature, or agitation than most other films.

Tom Phillips wrote:

Kevin wrote:

Richard,

I seem to be coming to the same conclusion. I should probably create
a graph and see what the curve actually is. I do find it odd that I
have to overexpose by 2 stops to get a zone 1 density that is .1 above
base plus fog. I took a couple of shots indoors of some guitars in
artificial light. One was overexposed by one stop and the other was
two stops.

While I'm not a tri-x shooter, it's not unusual to rate film
speed (effective speed) 1/3 to 1/2 the ISO speed

1/3 to 1/2 stop _less_ than the ISO rated speed (give more exposure.)

"Kevin" wrote in message

D76 ... 320 Tri-x (TXP) [sheet film] ... negatives are
about 2 stops under exposed. [Are Kodak's published
times reliable?]

Kodak's published development times are the _last_ thing
I would doubt.

If you haven't found the cause it is because it is somewhere
you have not yet looked or that you are sure is not the cause.

Have you tried distilled water, only costs $0.69 to find out?
I found Cleveland city water was the cause of 20 years
of development woes. I only stumbled on to it when I tried
Rodinal and got consistently blank negatives.
One bottle of Distilata and I was hooked; in the succeeding 20
years I have not had _one_ case of mysterious under/non
development. Non-mystery failures are another matter ...

I would doubt _everything_. Does the light meter agree with
a Black-Cat card? Does the shutter jive with a spinning
turntable or the lines on a TV screen - at the speeds you are
using to shoot the Tri-X? Do the aperture settings agree with
a ruler measurement of the entrance pupil? Is the D-76 good?
Are you agitating by the book? etc. etc. etc. Did you load
the film with the emulsion towards the lens? We have all done
these at one time or another.

If D-76 & Tri-X isn't working then something is seriously
wrong.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:13:04 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:

"Kevin" wrote in message

D76 ... 320 Tri-x (TXP) [sheet film] ... negatives are
about 2 stops under exposed. [Are Kodak's published
times reliable?]

Kodak's published development times are the _last_ thing
I would doubt.

They sure are among the last on the list.

If you haven't found the cause it is because it is somewhere
you have not yet looked or that you are sure is not the cause.

Have you tried distilled water, only costs $0.69 to find out?
I found Cleveland city water was the cause of 20 years
of development woes.

Ouch! I have been lucky in having lived in Hudson County, NJ, NYC,
Los Angeles and San Francisco durng my darkroom activities. No
problems. On a few occasions, I had to develope a roll or two in some
other areas, and had a few unexpected disappointments that I couldn't
figure out. That could well have been the cause underlying these few
misfortunes. I add my vote to this suggestion.

At a time when I felt that I knew pretty much enough to figure my way
out of a sticky situation in darkroom work, I am pleasntly surprised
to get another nugget of information. That's one of the real benefits
of this and other NGs and why we have to make the environment here
more welcoming of rational and polite discourse.

Thanks, Nick. Oh, wasn't that river flowing by Cleveland the one that
would occasionally catch fire from its pollution, or was it
Minneapolis?


I only stumbled on to it when I tried
Rodinal and got consistently blank negatives.
One bottle of Distilata and I was hooked; in the succeeding 20
years I have not had _one_ case of mysterious under/non
development. Non-mystery failures are another matter ...

I would doubt _everything_. Does the light meter agree with
a Black-Cat card? Does the shutter jive with a spinning
turntable or the lines on a TV screen - at the speeds you are
using to shoot the Tri-X? Do the aperture settings agree with
a ruler measurement of the entrance pupil? Is the D-76 good?
Are you agitating by the book? etc. etc. etc. Did you load
the film with the emulsion towards the lens? We have all done
these at one time or another.

If You, Kevin, can't tell just from eyeballing the negs about Nick's
last point, make some contact prints. I know you have no use of an
enlarger, but setting up a light bulb over a contact frame would work,
Just make a first test with a known set of good negatives, then tests
with your mystery rolls. You'll see if they are properly oriented
right away. After that you'll getan idea about what you can discern
from the edge markings. While Richard is right that they are not
definitive, they are usually indicative and can give you a boost along
the way toward a solution.

If D-76 & Tri-X isn't working then something is seriously
wrong.

Regards to all,


Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:13:04 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:

"Kevin" wrote in message

D76 ... 320 Tri-x (TXP) [sheet film] ... negatives are
about 2 stops under exposed. [Are Kodak's published
times reliable?]

Kodak's published development times are the _last_ thing
I would doubt.

They sure are among the last on the list.

If you haven't found the cause it is because it is somewhere
you have not yet looked or that you are sure is not the cause.

Have you tried distilled water, only costs $0.69 to find out?
I found Cleveland city water was the cause of 20 years
of development woes.

Ouch! I have been lucky in having lived in Hudson County, NJ, NYC,
Los Angeles and San Francisco durng my darkroom activities. No
problems. On a few occasions, I had to develope a roll or two in some
other areas, and had a few unexpected disappointments that I couldn't
figure out. That could well have been the cause underlying these few
misfortunes. I add my vote to this suggestion.

At a time when I felt that I knew pretty much enough to figure my way
out of a sticky situation in darkroom work, I am pleasntly surprised
to get another nugget of information. That's one of the real benefits
of this and other NGs and why we have to make the environment here
more welcoming of rational and polite discourse.

Thanks, Nick. Oh, wasn't that river flowing by Cleveland the one that
would occasionally catch fire from its pollution, or was it
Minneapolis?


I only stumbled on to it when I tried
Rodinal and got consistently blank negatives.
One bottle of Distilata and I was hooked; in the succeeding 20
years I have not had _one_ case of mysterious under/non
development. Non-mystery failures are another matter ...

I would doubt _everything_. Does the light meter agree with
a Black-Cat card? Does the shutter jive with a spinning
turntable or the lines on a TV screen - at the speeds you are
using to shoot the Tri-X? Do the aperture settings agree with
a ruler measurement of the entrance pupil? Is the D-76 good?
Are you agitating by the book? etc. etc. etc. Did you load
the film with the emulsion towards the lens? We have all done
these at one time or another.

If You, Kevin, can't tell just from eyeballing the negs about Nick's
last point, make some contact prints. I know you have no use of an
enlarger, but setting up a light bulb over a contact frame would work,
Just make a first test with a known set of good negatives, then tests
with your mystery rolls. You'll see if they are properly oriented
right away. After that you'll getan idea about what you can discern
from the edge markings. While Richard is right that they are not
definitive, they are usually indicative and can give you a boost along
the way toward a solution.

If D-76 & Tri-X isn't working then something is seriously
wrong.

Regards to all,


Robert Vervoordt, MFA

I was thinking of trying distilled water and forgot about. I'm going
to give that a try tonight. If that doens't work, maybe I'll pick up
another batch of film.

Another thing that bothers me is how purple the base is. I've never
had negatives come out purple before. It's the same whether I use D76
or HC-110. I've heard of other people seeing this and have heard is
not a problem.

Kevin

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:13:04 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:

"Kevin" wrote in message

D76 ... 320 Tri-x (TXP) [sheet film] ... negatives are
about 2 stops under exposed. [Are Kodak's published
times reliable?]

Kodak's published development times are the _last_ thing
I would doubt.

If you haven't found the cause it is because it is somewhere
you have not yet looked or that you are sure is not the cause.

Have you tried distilled water, only costs $0.69 to find out?
I found Cleveland city water was the cause of 20 years
of development woes. I only stumbled on to it when I tried
Rodinal and got consistently blank negatives.
One bottle of Distilata and I was hooked; in the succeeding 20
years I have not had _one_ case of mysterious under/non
development. Non-mystery failures are another matter ...

I would doubt _everything_. Does the light meter agree with
a Black-Cat card? Does the shutter jive with a spinning
turntable or the lines on a TV screen - at the speeds you are
using to shoot the Tri-X? Do the aperture settings agree with
a ruler measurement of the entrance pupil? Is the D-76 good?
Are you agitating by the book? etc. etc. etc. Did you load
the film with the emulsion towards the lens? We have all done
these at one time or another.

If D-76 & Tri-X isn't working then something is seriously
wrong.

I was thinking of trying distilled water and forgot about. I'm going
to give that a try tonight. If that doens't work, maybe I'll pick up
another batch of film.

Another thing that bothers me is how purple the base is. I've never
had negatives come out purple before. It's the same whether I use D76
or HC-110. I've heard of other people seeing this and have heard is
not a problem.

Kevin

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 05:13:04 GMT, "Nicholas O. Lindan"
wrote:

"Kevin" wrote in message

D76 ... 320 Tri-x (TXP) [sheet film] ... negatives are
about 2 stops under exposed. [Are Kodak's published
times reliable?]

Kodak's published development times are the _last_ thing
I would doubt.

If you haven't found the cause it is because it is somewhere
you have not yet looked or that you are sure is not the cause.

Have you tried distilled water, only costs $0.69 to find out?
I found Cleveland city water was the cause of 20 years
of development woes. I only stumbled on to it when I tried
Rodinal and got consistently blank negatives.
One bottle of Distilata and I was hooked; in the succeeding 20
years I have not had _one_ case of mysterious under/non
development. Non-mystery failures are another matter ...

I would doubt _everything_. Does the light meter agree with
a Black-Cat card? Does the shutter jive with a spinning
turntable or the lines on a TV screen - at the speeds you are
using to shoot the Tri-X? Do the aperture settings agree with
a ruler measurement of the entrance pupil? Is the D-76 good?
Are you agitating by the book? etc. etc. etc. Did you load
the film with the emulsion towards the lens? We have all done
these at one time or another.

If D-76 & Tri-X isn't working then something is seriously
wrong.