[bobbotron]

Ok thank you all for a lot of great and helpful advice I didn't expect so much response. I finished shooting my whole trip on Kodak Tri-X and I'm more or less satisfied by the results. Nonetheless I'd like to try shooting some HP5 in the future. But now with such erudite debaters as are here on pentaxforums I'd like to ask a few more questions.

1. What does it mean when film curls while scanned?
2. What reasonably priced film negative scanner would you recomend for home purchase?
3. What developing chemicals would you recomend? (I still use Kodak tri-x but wanting to try HP5+ and delta 100.
4. I'm planning to shoot project with working title "straight from 1930's 40's" and I would like to ask if there's any type of film on the market that has not changed since than. I've discovered that for example tri-x was introduced in 1954.

Thank you very much.

1. Some films, when developed get curly. This can make getting them to stay flat in your scanner a real pain, or even getting them to cooperate with a film scan holder.
3. Controversial topic! I love Rodinal, but it is a little grainy. The nice thing starting out is that you can use it straight from the container, no mixing powders or other thick concentrates. Given those films, you could try Ilfosol 3. Never tried it, but I think it'd be a really solid choice for those films.
4. Tri-x would be a good choice. Maybe Foma, it definitely is an antique looking film. Also try to use an older, less/un coated lens, makes a big difference. While not an old film, Rollei Retro 80s could be good too.

Good luck!

[TomB_tx]

The Ilford films resist curl much better than Kodak. I used TriX and Panatomic X in the 1960s, and don't remember much curl, but they must have changed the base material. My favorite film is now Ilford PanF developed in Rodinal, as I love the tonal range and reasonably fine grain. ISO 50 would have been amazingly fast in the 1930s.
I used Ilfosol3 a few years ago, but like the results with Rodinal much better now.

[AquaDome]

The biggest difference between HP5+ and Tri-X is the price. You can make any of the modern B&W films work for you. For a developer, D76 or HC-110 will work well with just about every B&W film. Exotic film/developer/exposure/push/pull process combinations have their place, but stick to normal for learning. If you want an old-time look to your prints, any traditional B&W will work. T-grain films will give a more modern look in the print. Shoot to make the largest negative you can make and contact print it if possible. Try a 6x9 box camera with PanF+ or FP4+.

[Digitalis]

I'd say be wary of the recommended ISO - drop it down a third or half of a stop to be sure, negative films love overexposure. Some manufacturers are a bit optimistic about their product. Use a common developer: D76 is the gold standard and it won't spring any surprises on you if you stick to standard developing times, which are quite manageable.

Different manufacturers films have different tonescales - the developer you use can impact this drastically.

Delta 100 and TMax 100 and will tell you that TMax is more flexible but Delta is sharper.

Delta isn't sharper, you're mistaking grain for detail. Delta 100 has higher RMS granularity is than T-max - but developer used has a massive effect upon this, T-Max 100 Exposed @ ISO 50 in Pyrocat is amazing.

panchromatic vs silver halide. That's the choice you need to make.

What? if you undersood what panchromatic means, you would know all the things that are wrong with the above statement.

I think you mean chromogenic vs silver halide

That is more like it. Chromogenic films is dye based - there is no grain, but dye clouds; unlike classic silver halide films with silver grains. Chromogenic films can handle similar degrees of abuse that negative B&W films can handle - but they are tedious to develop as instead of classic B&W processing you have to do C-41....I have heard you can use B&W developers on chromogenic films. I hear the results are...interesting.

develop your film in Rodinal

Be warned, developing ISO400 films is acquired taste. If care is taken in printing negatives the results can be distinctly appealing.

I find the Ilford films dry flatter and so handle better without the curl modern Kodak films have.

Some Kodak films had thicker bases, a classic example of this is T-max 100 in 120 format, with manual winding cameras the thicker base translated to greater flatness as the film was smashed flat against the film rails - this had to be changed later on to accommodate MF cameras with automatic winders - you could mess up the entire film transport mechanism, it couldn't handle the extra friction and you could burn the winder motor out.

Kodak 35mm films did curl more, but I find that they ultimately maintained their flatness better in film holders than the thinner ilford equivalents did.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 11-25-2016 at 10:56 PM.

[Xmas]

You need to try as curly film, spots, water marks, you may never get.
Tx is modern 2 electron sensitised film not the same as the '54 film. It needs lot of fixing and washing.
The old signature needs Foma Rodinal single coated lens deep hood and wet prints but it is nice.
Grain & sharpnes are subjective.

[ChrisPlatt]

Though I still like the look of Tri-X, sadly my 35mm Tri-X negatives always seem to come out objectionably curly and pink or purple,
despite trying various recommendations for presoak, fix, wash and dry. I have temporarily sworn off ever using Tri-X again.

Chris

[Xmas]

Though I still like the look of Tri-X, sadly my 35mm Tri-X negatives always seem to come out objectionably curly and pink or purple,
despite trying various recommendations for presoak, fix, wash and dry. I have temporarily sworn off ever using Tri-X again.

Chris

The TX needs fixing for 2-3 times longer than normal films and lots of washing to remove the pink dye I don't get much curl as I dry 75-80% relative humidity takes ages 8 hours or so for safe handle. The pink is a dye but it is indicative of inadequate fix or wash see Kodak data sheet.

[ChrisPlatt]

I've tried all that and more, yet still my Tri-X negs are not clear.
IMO it's just not worth my time and effort.

OTOH Ilford HP5+ dries clear and perfectly flat.

Chris

[bobbotron]

The TX needs fixing for 2-3 times longer than normal films and lots of washing to remove the pink dye I don't get much curl as I dry 75-80% relative humidity takes ages 8 hours or so for safe handle. The pink is a dye but it is indicative of inadequate fix or wash see Kodak data sheet.

The real Q is does that pink base effect scanned/wet printed IQ?

[brofkand]

The real Q is does that pink base effect scanned/wet printed IQ?

Kodak discusses the pink stain at length in their technical data. An excerpt:

Your fixer will be exhausted more rapidly with this film than with other films. If your negatives show a magenta (pink) stain after fixing, your fixer may be near exhaustion, or you may not have used a long enough time. If the stain is slight, it will not affect image stability, negative contrast, or printing times. You can remove a slight pink stain with KODAK Hypo Clearing Agent. However, if the stain is pronounced and irregular over the film surface, refix the film in fresh fixer.

http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/f4043_TMax_400.pdf

[bobbotron]

Kodak discusses the pink stain at length in their technical data. An excerpt:
http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/f4043_TMax_400.pdf

Good to know, thanks! I'm deving my first roll of Tri-X soon, will keep that in mind, was considering making new fixer up.

[brofkand]

Good to know, thanks! I'm deving my first roll of Tri-X soon, will keep that in mind, was considering making new fixer up.

This technical bulletin only applies to T-Max, not Tri-X. Sorry, I misunderstood.

Tri-X has a colored base and I've not been able to do anything about it. Like Chris, I use Ilford roll films now pretty much exclusively. Foma for large format.

I would not worry about the colored base with your Tri-X. When printing optically and scanning digitally, it does not pose an issue. I would only say to ensure you fix with fresh fixer (recommend a rapid non-hardening fixer, like Ilford Rapid Fixer) for 5 minutes. Then do the Ilford archival rinse (look up the instructions on Ilford Photo's website). Finish with Photo-Flo. Good luck!

[goatsNdonkey]

Talking about film, I picked up a sealed roll of 120 Fujicolor Superior HG 400 at a fair. When it was developed, the entire roll had been exposed to light and was completely blank. I asked the shop if they may have had an accident, but he said no, and showed me the stub attached to the reel as unexposed. Does anyone have any idea how this came about? If the camera back had been open I surely would have noticed it, and at least there would have been some image. A manufacturing flaw?

John's already gotten a lot of responses to his original question by this time, so maybe this won't seem like trying to hijack his thread. Arnold, if you have more questions about this, better to start a new thread than continuing here. Still, I've thought of something that could cause the problem you saw with this film, so I thought I would pass it on. You could have a shutter curtains that are sluggish and even not closing all the way, meaning that anytime the lens cap is off, the loaded frame is being exposed. If you open the back of the camera and fire the shutter, you should be able to see if that is happening. I recently got an old film slr and discovered that at its two slowest shutter speeds the shutter was slow and often didn't fully closed after being tripped. At higher shutter speeds it couldn't be snappier. I can't tell you much about what causes that problem and how it can be fixed, if that seems like the problem you are having. If you do need to ask more about this, start a new discussion thread, and be sure to tell what model camera it is and anything else that might help somebody recognize possible issues that could cause the results you got.

[ChrisPlatt]

T-grain films like Kodak T-Max will definitely exhaust your fixer more rapidly.
I haven't developed any of my FOMA 200 film which is said to be a hybrid emulsion.

Chris

[Xmas]

I've tried all that and more, yet still my Tri-X negs are not clear.
IMO it's just not worth my time and effort.

OTOH Ilford HP5+ dries clear and perfectly flat.

Chris

Ok data sheet does address pink dye.
http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/f4017_TriX.pdf
But I need to fix in hypo 10-20 mins by inspection and use hypo clear per sheet

I'll try some Tx next weekend.

Kodak Ilford and Foma all dry flat but need 8 hours or longer for safe handling, in high RH.