Back to basics D76 & TriX

Tom A

Tom A

RFF Sponsor
Local time
2:39 AM
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
6,124
Due to some medical problem and the ensuing medication I have been laid up for the last couple of month. So it was a good time to start sorting out some old negative files. Most dating back to the mid-80's and earlier.
For decades my developer of choice was the D76, diluted 1:1 and 10 minutes with TriX, usually shot as "sunny f16". I either used the store bought version in cans or pouches - or made my own.
Going back over, so far, 150 rolls, it amazed me how good that combination is. Not the sharpest edge as the Sodium Sulphite volume kind of "mushes" up the grain a bit, but those midtones are great and it is a combination that has a great exposure latitude - i.e. you can screw up quite a bit and still get decent prints (or, today, scan)
Over the decades I have probably processed TriX in just about any known mix, it has been pulled and pushed more than the salt water taffy at a beach concession - anything from 6 iso to 3200 iso. In the end I usually have come back to D76, 1:1, 10 minutes and the film at something like 320-400 iso. Seems to be an international message too - any lab ( with a couple of notable exceptions) will recognize it "Ah, TriX. D76/1;1/10 min?"
Just put up about 170 shots on our Flickr "Back to Basics TriX/D76" - going from 1970 until yesterday. The early stuff (1970) was developed in Perth, Western Australia and I suspect that they used Vegemite in the D76. Kind of strange looking negatives.
But once I could do my own processing - it improved the quality.
I just loaded up some 38 reloadable cassettes (Nikon Rf) with TriX and the Arista Premium 400 (same thing - except that the Arista is 1/2 the cost).
So for the next couple of month I will do some more of this "magical" combination (still a couple of 1000 ft of Arista/TriX in the freezer).
So give your input on your own experience with the Classic Combo - It was the press photographers standard soup, it was Salgados choice for his venture to Sahel, it was Magnum's "drink" of choice. Kodak got it right in 1954 and though they have fiddled a bit with the base and the emulsion - you can still rely on D76, 1:1 for 10 min.

All you really need is that M2, a 35 and a bag of "uncanned" TriX and the phrase "D76/10 min? 1:1" and you are all set.

I will probably incorporate some of the variations on D76 (E76, Divided D76, Buffered D76 etc) in the next while too.

So smell that Sodium Sulphite, shake the metol can and chip out some Potassium Carbonate and go and get a box of 20 mule team Borax too.

Should have a lead in picture to this - but I still cant figure out how to do it - so take my words for it and check the Flickr instead.

My first TriX was shot in 1957 and though I have no idea how many rolls of it I have shot - it probably ranges in the 20 000 roll range.

The world of Photography is divided in 2 camps - The TriX group and the HP5 clan - some upstarts from japan and China lately - and the contrast lovers of Agfapan 400.
But this is all about TriX and D76 - so let it rip.
Tom
 

Attachments

  • chinatown.jpg
    chinatown.jpg
    33.6 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
Excellent post, Tom.

I use either Diafine or D-76 & Plus-X has it's joys as well :)

William
 
I had to stop the slide show! Damn! Tom, you are one very fine photographer! That's quite a body of work you have there. I think that one film, one developer is a much better project than one camera, one lens. I love all my cameras in two formats, but I'd be happy with D76, 1:1, Tri-x, 10 minutes, 68 deg. forever! That's mostly what's in my flickr, too! Thanks for sharing all those pictures in one place! Be well,
 
Kodak currently recommends only 9.75 minutes for Tri-X in D76 1+1, a change they made in processing directions after they reformulated Tri-X a few yrs ago when production of it and Kodak's other BW films was moved to a new plant. I use the new time and it works gorgeously. 15 seconds isn't much difference, but I wonder if you've noticed the newer film looking any different than the older version?
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
they reformulated Tri-X a few yrs ago when production of it and Kodak's other BW films was moved to a new plant.
Click to expand...

and it has not been the same since. Since they reformulated it, HP5+ looks closer to the older Tri-X. The newer Tri-X is finer grain but I prefer HP5+ since the mid- 2000s. The newer Tri-X looks more like Tmax.
 
I mix my D-76 with Mississippi river water (filtered through the St. Louis water supply, of course). It may be the water, but I find I get my best negatives at around 9 minutes rather than 10. If the subject is very contrasty, then I shoot the Tri-X at 250 and develop for only 7 to 8 minutes.

I think it may also have to do with my enlarger, which is a Durst condenser type. Do you use a diffusion enlarger, Tom?

Feel better, Tom, and be as well as possible.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Kodak currently recommends only 9.75 minutes for Tri-X in D76 1+1, a change they made in processing directions after they reformulated Tri-X a few yrs ago when production of it and Kodak's other BW films was moved to a new plant. I use the new time and it works gorgeously. 15 seconds isn't much difference, but I wonder if you've noticed the newer film looking any different than the older version?
Click to expand...


Chris, one has to assume that Kodak intends you to use a camera with a meter etc. I guess exposures - somewhat haphazardly and and 15 seconds ain't going to change much. This is probably why I have stuck with my 10 minutes, Hate to change it and probably subconciously correct the exposure. After almost 50 years of doing it my way - the film better take it.
 
bigeye said:
Hope you're OK Tom.


..
Click to expand...

I have to take something called Revlimid. It is a drug used to suppress a bone-marrow cancer (Multiple Myeloma). Every couple of years it pops back and the Doctors look for something else to try (so far it has been Stemcell transplant, several years on Thalidomide and now this latest concoction.
It is mainly the side-effects that are brutal. Nerve damage to the legs which can make walking a bit difficult, a bit of "shake" - 1/250 can cure that.
Not fun, but sure beats the alternative!
I have so far survived for almost ten years and I plan to use up all the film in the freezer and even restock!
 
Rob-F said:
I mix my D-76 with Mississippi river water (filtered through the St. Louis water supply, of course). It may be the water, but I find I get my best negatives at around 9 minutes rather than 10. If the subject is very contrasty, then I shoot the Tri-X at 250 and develop for only 7 to 8 minutes.
I think it may also have to do with my enlarger, which is a Durst condenser type. Do you use a diffusion enlarger, Tom?

Feel better, Tom, and be as well as possible.
Click to expand...

I use a couple of Focomat's (a 1c and a 2c). As with any film, you establish a routine and by standardizing on processing - you eliminate one "unknown".
It also depends on how you shoot, read light and what look you are after in the end. I think after a while you correct your exposures subconciously and hope that it worked out. Thats why it still a bit of "butterflies in the stomach" time when you pull the fllm off the reels!
 
Tom, I'm glad to hear you're fine, and to see you're doing all day what you do so very well... Enjoy and best wishes... We're enjoying your photographs deeply... Thanks!

Cheers,

Juan
 
Nice coincidence in that I have just ordered some D76 to use with Tri-X instead of my usual Rodinal.

Take care Tom

Al
 
I sure like the venerable Tri-x/D-76 combo. Whenever I use Tri-X I soup it in D-76 1:1 thanks to Tom's friendly advice. I've noticed that I like my negs with a bit less contrast and I tend to shoot Tri-x @ 200-250-320 (depends on the light conditions) and develop it a little less, like 8 to 9 mins. It works for me.

My only wish is that Kodak would have some sense in their pricing in EU. Tri-x is $5 to $6 a roll here and bulk rolls cost even more. Unfortunately, Arista is not available here.
 
Tom, can you comment on the difference between Xtol, D-76 and HC-110 as typically used on Tri-X? What would the differences in results be? I'm inclined toward the HC-110 though I haven't used it because it lasts so long. And Ansel Adams liked it.

And please be well, feel strong, and kick some Vancouver BC butt. Or Seattle if necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top