[Russell W. Barnes]

Peeps,

I'm going to try a roll of Kodak Tri-X in Ilfotec DD-X but am at odds with the agitation times. Do I agitate as per Ilford instruction for their films (4 inversions for first ten secs then four inversions each minute thereafter) or do I agitate as per Kodak state on their film datasheet (once per second for five seconds initially then five 1-sec inversions every thirty secs)? I'll be rating it at 400 ISO as per the box and using the time of the Massive Development Chart. I use a Paterson tank and 300ml of chemicals.

I guess what I'm asking is whether agitation is specific to the type of film irrespective of developer used, or does developer influence agitation irrespective of film? Or is it a bit of both? All advice appreciated!

[twilhelm]

Experimentation will lead to the best results.

Having said that, I use what the developer recommends as a starting point. I say that because if you were to use Rodinal and agitate according to Kodak, every 30 seconds, you will get negatives that are very dense and with extremely high contrast.

[Russell W. Barnes]

Experimentation will lead to the best results.

Thanks for that - that's what I expect to do, but it will take some time (and film!) to acquire a portfolio of notes. I suspect your advice on developer recommendation is the safest bet so I'll probably stick with that. Am I correct in supposing five seconds' agitation every thirty secs will affect the film the same as ten seconds every minute? I'm going to have a go at some AgfaPhoto APX 100 too, so with 8 mins (TriX) and 10.5 mins (Agfa) development time (20 degrees) maybe every thirty secs or twice as long every minute doesn't matter?


Interesting to find out!

[twilhelm]

Thanks for that - that's what I expect to do, but it will take some time (and film!) to acquire a portfolio of notes. I suspect your advice on developer recommendation is the safest bet so I'll probably stick with that. Am I correct in supposing five seconds' agitation every thirty secs will affect the film the same as ten seconds every minute? I'm going to have a go at some AgfaPhoto APX 100 too, so with 8 mins (TriX) and 10.5 mins (Agfa) development time (20 degrees) maybe every thirty secs or twice as long every minute doesn't matter?


Interesting to find out!

You will get different results doubling the agitation every minute instead of 30 seconds, but that will depend on the developer.

[disconnekt]

I would say try one roll with the Illford instructions & one roll with the Kodak instructions and see how the the results.

[Alex645]

I use what the developer recommends as a starting point.

I agree that I'd default to the developer recommendation more than the film.

I've never tried Tri-X with DD-X. Tri-X works well with D76 or XTOL, and DD-X from my experience is optimized with Ilford Delta films. If you like Ilford chems and Kodak Tri-X, I'd recommend ID-11. If you really want to use Kodak with DD-X, try Tmax instead.

[Russell W. Barnes]

Thanks all for suggestions so far. I guess everything will work, but some combinations will work better. Once I've got through my bottle of DD-X I was going to try Rodinal and see where I got with that. I read that it lasts a long time, which suits me. I've always used Ilford and Tri-X black-and-white neg film but was keen to give Agfa a go and maybe Fomapan just to see for myself.

There's a 'Holy Grail' element to all this: A photo is a great photo, until you see a better one!

[WPRESTO]

There's a 'Holy Grail' element to all this: A photo is a great photo, until you see a better one!

I will remark, as I have several times in the past, in the film era Tri X primarily developed in D-76 had a "look" = a combination of detail, contrast and grain that was regarded as near-perfect for some kinds of photography. That is part of the reason why Tri-X is still available.

[twilhelm]

I will remark, as I have several times in the past, in the film era Tri X primarily developed in D-76 had a "look" = a combination of detail, contrast and grain that was regarded as near-perfect for some kinds of photography. That is part of the reason why Tri-X is still available.

This is very true. Just as the “look” acquired with APX in Rodinal, even though the originals are no longer available. I’ve developed Tri-X in D76, HC-110 and Rodinal, and only D76 gave it that “Kodak look” even though I liked the other results.

[StiffLegged]

If you like Ilford chems and Kodak Tri-X, I'd recommend ID-11.

Kodak D76 and Ilford ID-11 are the same developer. Same recipe, same results.

[Alex645]

Kodak D76 and Ilford ID-11 are the same developer. Same recipe, same results.

This is 99.9% true, except that D76 comes premixed and thus Kodak uses agents to prevent oxidation and other issues vs. ID-11 that does not need it because it is not premixed, but comes with a part A and B.

Essentially they are interchangeable assuming the age of D76 is not too old or exposed to hot storage and that the ID-11 is well mixed.

Of all the general developers, I feel Kodak XTOL is a notch above both D76 and ID11. For Kodak TMax, I swear by Tmax developer and for Ilford Delta, DD-X, although I know the chems in XTOL and DD-X are essentially equivalent.

[tuco]

If you are using Ilford's development time for the film, you agitate per their instructions. The established development time of a film is a function of the agitation profile used. And the same goes with any other developer. Of course two seemingly different agitation profiles could essentially be equivalent and in which case it doesn't matter if the developers behave in a similar matter.

[Russell W. Barnes]

If you are using Ilford's development time for the film, you agitate per their instructions.

Thanks for that. I've just ordered a 1-litre mix of ID-11 to have a go with and according to the data sheet, the Ilford-recommended agitation is identical to that for DD-X (and indeed for Perceptol and Microphen). I feel more confident now.