Trix in Rodinal start point.

[rob_x2004]

Anyone have any comments on;

Tri-X 400 Rodinal 1+50 400iso 13min 20C

Shot in bright contrast conditions. Generally with my water conditions I find agitation 10 then 2 tilts on minute more than enough for scanning. Better to go back to 1+25?

[Dan States]

Sounds grainy! Are you wet printing or scanning? If scanning just keep your dev times down to control density in the highlights.

I've always used D76 1-1 for negatives with possible contrast issues. (not saying it's better just my preference).

Best wishes
Dan

[rob_x2004]

Ive never used Trix, and my opinion of it is that it isnt black and white, it just has black dots that either develop or dont....Ive seen a broadsheet.

Ive got a roll of it though so whats that give me, thirty, thirty five cans to develop? I'll give it a go.

[richam]

Originally Posted by rob_x2004

...it isnt black and white, it just has black dots that either develop or dont...

Seems self-contradictory to me. Are you a politician by any chance?

[stunsworth]

Try some Xtol. Dilluted 1:3.

[Bill Morgenstern]

While I never understood the compulsion for using Tri-X in bright light, four decades of experience with Rodinal suggusts that you try E.I. 250 in high contrast light 1:85 for 14 min. You could use E.I. 400 for moderate contrast @ 1:75 for 14.5 min. Since Rodinal is a compensating developer, use it at high dilutions to control contrast--not to mention the georgous Eberhard Effect.

[rob_x2004]

Originally Posted by Bill Morgenstern

While I never understood the compulsion for using Tri-X in bright light, four decades of experience with Rodinal suggusts that you try E.I. 250 in high contrast light 1:85 for 14 min. You could use E.I. 400 for moderate contrast @ 1:75 for 14.5 min. Since Rodinal is a compensating developer, use it at high dilutions to control contrast--not to mention the georgous Eberhard Effect.

I never understood the compulsion for using Trix. But I have a hundred feet of it to learn something new.
I have a few exposed rolls now and I will give the high dilution route a go.
Thanks.

[Dan States]

It's popular because used right it looks fantastic. In Xtol, D76 or ID11 it is very fine grained with amazing shadow detail when exposed at 250 and development is pulled 10%.

In Rodinal it will have hard grain, with lots of clumping. Some seem to like that look and good on them.

Dan

[mr_phillip]

Some of my favourite photographers have used this combo to glorious effect (Ralph Gobson, Trent Parke), yet whenever I've tried it it looks like crap. Must be a style thing I guess.

Anyway, if you're using it in bright light and want any kind of tonal range, it'll likely be best to pull the Tri-X to 200-250asa then soup it in 1+100 for 12-15 minutes. Should give you a decent starting point to work from.

[Bill Morgenstern]

If grain is an issue, you can get "D-76" grain by adding 100grams of Sodium Sulfite per liter of working solution of your Rodinal mix. It will retain the properties of Rodinal, yet subdue the grain.

[jimmy pro]

Originally Posted by rob_x2004

I never understood the compulsion for using Trix.

It goes along with the compulsion for useing Leicas Seriously though, there is a lot of monkey-see-monkey-do when it comes to "Leica Photography" (whatever the heck that is) especially since the internet. Good thing pink sneakers aren't part of it because I don't think so many guys could pull it off I quit useing Tri-x as soon as I got my first look at T-Max. And for scanning to digital (something that made me ask myself "why not just shoot digital to begin with" and so I cut to the chase) the C41 process chromagenics get along much better with scanner software. In fact, if you think about how easy it is to convert to b&w, there are a lot more choices if you just shoot C41 color.

[stunsworth]

When Kodak released the revised Tri-X a few years ago it had finer grain than the T-Max film. It was Kodak who supplied the comparison.

C41 scans much more easily, but I've always found it to look bland compared to 'traditional' film. Rather like Tom Cruise's acting, very smooth but lacking in character.

[jimmy pro]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

When Kodak released the revised Tri-X a few years ago it had finer grain than the T-Max film. It was Kodak who supplied the comparison.

Tri-X now compared to T-Max 400 now, you'd have to have glacoma and cateracts not to see that T-Max has finer grain. I never read Kodak's or anyone else's comparison. I'm capable of comparing them myself.

C41 scans much more easily, but I've always found it to look bland compared to 'traditional' film. Rather like Tom Cruise's acting, very smooth but lacking in character.

Well I have to assume your talking about Cruise's acting in movies, not the way he acts in real life

As for C41 scans being to smooth, well, some people think that digitalized grain looks good but it makes me want to puke. I'd rather get a smooth scan and use software to grain it up if that's what I want. Looks a damn sight better than scanned grain clumps. It's also a nice bonus to have the IR dust & scratch removel working, which C41 does. What C41 doesn't do is let you have the fun of souping your own film, spending time argueing about what developer and time "blows away" the one some other guy on a forum says is "best", or let you feel like your getting the whole nostalgic film thing going on...which is weird because then most guy's seem to be sticking there negs on some cheap flatbed and taking a digital picture of them.

[PATB]

Originally Posted by jimmy pro

Tri-X now compared to T-Max 400 now, you'd have to have glacoma and cateracts not to see that T-Max has finer grain. I never read Kodak's or anyone else's comparison. I'm capable of comparing them myself.

Have you tried printing them? I find that Tri-X prints appear sharper and have more bite than the new T-MAX 400, at least on Ilford and Oriental multi-grade fiber. I am curious as to your opinion on sharpness between the two films.

[R2-D2]

Originally Posted by PATB

Have you tried printing them? I find that Tri-X prints appear sharper and have more bite than the new T-MAX 400, at least on Ilford and Oriental multi-grade fiber. I am curious as to your opinion on sharpness between the two films.

Which developer do you use?

[PATB]

Originally Posted by R2-D2

Which developer do you use?

Since I have not yet developed times for the new T-MAX 400 in DDX, I used Clayton F76+ for both the Tri-X and new T-MAX 400 for the print "comparison."

Otherwise, I usually use DDX for film (Tri-X and Delta 3200 usually) and Lauder Chemicals for paper.

[R2-D2]

Originally Posted by PATB

Since I have not yet developed times for the new T-MAX 400 in DDX, I used Clayton F76+ for both the Tri-X and new T-MAX 400 for the print "comparison."

Otherwise, I usually use DDX for film (Tri-X and Delta 3200 usually) and Lauder Chemicals for paper.

OK, thanks. I've never before heard of that Clayton thingy...