Good evening everyone,

I have been shooting with Leica for 7 months now (with a 50 summicron and a 135 f/4). I have been using Tri X 400 in Paris, and in Bermuda. Could you please give me any advice for the "optimal" use for this film? In other words, how do I get the best possible results with it? Sorry if this question sounds stupid, I have a lot to learn still.

Many thanks

Arie

-- Arie Haziza (nhaziza@northrock.bm), May 07, 2002

Answers

Your question hits a snag with the word "best". What is best, under what lighting conditions, with which lens?

TriX is a great film to experiment with if you're doing your own processing. It responds well to changes in development. It also responds with marked differences in different devolopers.

Having said all that, a good many photographers overexpose TriX by about 1/2 stop, and decrease development by a little bit. A little bit can be something like 10 to 15 percent or so when using a full speed developer like Xtol, D76 or HC110. This results in a lower contrast negative (longer tonal scale). Personally, I shy away from HC100, since the times are too short for consistancy (for me anyway).

-- Charles (cbarcellona@telocity.com), May 07, 2002.

Arie,

I've been shooting Tri-X for eons at EI 200, processed Normal in D76 1:1 with Benzotriazole @ 20 degrees Centigrade. My negatives are spectacular with this combination; you can just give it a whirl, or go through all the arduous camera/lens-calibration nonsense for your equipment, but five'll get you ten that if you just go ahead & overexpose Tri-X by one stop and process it normal(ly) in whatever developer, you'll get consistently good results: good highlight separation and good shadow detail. You can then adjust the rest when you make your prints.

Many years ago I started at the baseline exposing Tri-X @ [ASA, back then] ISO 400 and processing it normally. But my negatives were thin. A photojournalist friend of mine told me that my negatives were coming out that way because Tri-X wasn't a "true" 400-ASA film--it was more in the range of a 200 to 250-ISO film. If I wanted a closer- to-400-ASA film, he told me, I should use (at that time) Ilford HP5. I experimented with a plethora of film/developer combinations, including esoteric red and blue developers that came in little glass ampoules that you had to cut with a file to open. I spent a couple of years in pursuit of the Holy Grail of a film/developer combination that would give me what I was looking for. The result: I came full circle back to Tri-X, except that now I exposed it at EI 200 and added Benzotriazole to the 1:1 solution of D76. What a relief!

The only time I might veer from my stated formula is if I encounter a particularly flat lighting setup. Then, I might push it to EI 640. But, that's rare because I generally shoot more contrasty situations.

The other thing I'm really crazy about is using an orange or yellow- orange filter with Tri-X. If I do that, I still tend to rate it at EI 200 or 250. If you do this, make sure your metering is right on and you've calculated the filter factor correctly because, otherwise, you'll wind up canceling out the effect of the filter if you over- or underexpose the film.

This way of working with Tri-X suits my photographic style. It may or may not jive with yours, but if you give it a try and you don't like it, well, at most you've wasted a little time and film.

By the way, though, don't forget the Benzotriazole . . . .

-- Cosmo Genovese (cosmo@rome.com), May 07, 2002.

Tri-x arrived in 1954; I believe the film was Labeled ASA 200 back then..It may have been actually asa 400; but the Kodak guys wanted to have a 1 stop safety factor..In the 1950's the film it eclipsed in speed was super-XX; which was about 200 asa...I remember a guy using film pack tri-x in the early 1960's; he said it was asa 300! The 35mm tri-x I bought in the mid 1960's was asa 400....The tungsten light asa was 320 on many 400 asa films......I still have a couple of rolls of Royal-X in 120 rolls Frozen away ; it is labeled asa 1250

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 07, 2002.

after using ilford id11 for many years quite happily, i started to experiment with a few other chemicals like rodinal, ilfotec and a few other soupes just to find out, that i prefer id11. it was worth it.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 07, 2002.

Cosmo, What is Benzotriazole? What amount of it do you add to your developer? Dennis

-- Dennis Buss (dbuss@rider.edu), May 07, 2002.

Using Benzotriazol As An Antifog Additive

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 07, 2002.

Tri X is the most versatile and forgiving film I know of. Used with the right soup you can use it from asa 200 to 1600/3200. The classic combo. is Tri X and D76. Note that speed of films vary with the developer you use (and the way you use this developer). The standard developer used to establish the asa ratings is, if I remember correctly, something very close to D76. If you want information from experts on B&W (I'm not one of them), use the other greenspun excellent forum: B&W Photo - Film & Processing.

-- Xavier C. (xcolmant@powerir.com), May 08, 2002.

Benzotriazole is a restrainer, usually used in combination with Phenidone. All developers have a restrainer in the formula; D-76/ID-11 use Potassium Bromide. It also has the benefit of reducing fog on outdated film and papers. Edwal sells it as Liquid Orthazite (with the addition of Sodium Sulphite.) Don't add to film developer without testing first. Restrainers slow the rate of development.

Cosmo gets good results because he overexposes the film to get more detail in the shadows and the added restrainer slows the rate of development in the highlights.

Arie, try rating Tri-X at 200 and developing it for 20% less than normal. This will contract the number of steps between your shadows and your highlights ( the difference is known as the contrast index). The result will be lower contrast negatives that are easier to print. This is particularly useful when shooting in contrasty situations like the beaches of sunny Bermuda, although many photographers do this as a rule.

-- Steve Wiley (wiley@accesshub.net), May 08, 2002.

Dennis,

Steve is correct when he points out that Edwal makes benzotriazole under the trademark name "Orthazite". I used to buy it from Zone VI in a 2% solution form as "Zone VI Benzotriazole Solution (Antifoggant)". Calumet still sells it as the same Zone VI product in a 32-oz bottle (go to http://www.calumetphoto.com/ and in the "Speed Search" box type in benzotriazole).

"Orthazite" is basically the same thing, but I believe it may contain Sodium Sulfite. The pure 2% solution I'm referring to only has directions for use for print developer; the "Orthazite" bottle has the directions for use with film developer, namely, Edwal FG7, viz--

"Finer Grain With Borax type Semi-Fine Grain Developers Addition of a very small amount of Liquid Orthazite to D-76 and similar developers will cause some improvement in graininess, though there will be some loss of film speed. 2 cc. of Liquid Orthazite added per gallon of Borax developer causes a slight improvement of graininess with no apparent change in film speed. Addition of an extra 4 cc. of Liquid Orthazite (total 8 cc.) per gallon will result in a speed loss of 2 f-stops but also grain improvement. Further addition of Orthazite causes more speed but no particular grain improvement.

Getting Satisfactory Density From Manufacturers' Film Speed Rating with FG7[.] FG7 usually produces negatives which are denser and grainier with the manufacturers' recommended film speed than with the higher film speed recommended [in] the Edwal FG7 Bulletin and instructions. For those who prefer to use the manufacturers' film speeds and want the finer grain and excellent negative quality which FG7 produces, Liquid Orthazite can be added to the developer. If 2 cc. Orthazite are added to 16 ounce of FG7 either 1:3 dilution [or] 1:15 dilution, the effective film speed is reduced by about one f- stop. An additional lowering of speed by another f-stop can be achieved by adding another 2 cc. of Liquid Orthazite (total of 4 cc.) per pint of working developer."

See: http://www.falconsafety.com/edwal/liqorth.html

These are probably good starting points for experimentation. I think I use to add about 2cc to 4cc/gal of D76 1:1, so it was pretty diluted. Since I don't process my own film anymore, I don't know what formula the custom lab I go to uses (I've been using the same custom lab for almost 20 years; the owner has--for almost an equal number of years--ordered benzotriazole solution from Calumet and kept it on hand to process my film).

Kodak also sells benzotriazole as something like "Kodak Anti-Foggant" in a tablet form. Stay away from the Kodak product if you plan to use benzotriazole in your film developer. I don't know anyone on earth who's ever been able to successfully dissolve those little anti- foggant pills, even after pulverizing them with mortar and pestle. It's impossible and you run the risk of having microscopic granules of the tablets imbed themselves in the emulsion of your film. Not a desired result; and, for some reason, the Kodak tablets are inordinately expensive, comparatively speaking.

Buona fortuna.

-- Cosmo Genovese (cosmo@rome.com), May 08, 2002.