One thought on “Can We Recreate CLASSIC Tri-X Film? Part 2 D76!”
Great review of the Tri-X film grain. Back in the seventies and eighties we had more developer types. My choice was Promicrol by May&Baker. the concentrate was stored in 100ml pharmacy bottles and used to be diluted 1:4. It was fantastic and ASA speed could easily be doubles. It was the developer that kept shadow detail even if you made 2 stops mistakes. The grain was very fine.
I see today that grain is a desired aspect but in those days grain was a sad byproduct. Getting the shot far outweighed any grain or for that matter what it looked like.
Tri-X in 35 mm was the favourite of fashion and sport photographers. Skin tones were light and the grain was sharply defined.
later in my commercial lab a 3.5 gal dip and dunk tank with D76 became the normal processing method. D76 was not the best untill it was replenished with D76R. When a new batch was mixed maybe 3 months later the only reason was dissolved silver that added density to the films. The results were always great with a raised mid tone curve and due to its increased red sensitivity a beautiful lighter pearly skin tone.
But then Kodak messed with Tri-X Pan and many photographers never figured it out. They came out with Tri-X Pan Professional. The daylight speed was 320 and incandescent was 400. The toe of the curve was longer. Both sheet film and 120/220 could then be bought in both types. Unless you were good at deciphering spec sheets Kodak provided no dialog regarding the differences. The processing times in all developers were also different. We could no longer batch process the two together.
A number of other brand films with that speed became the competition and may be it was just all Kodak marketing.
In your tests I prefer Rodinal but D76 1:3 is a close second.
Thanks for doing this.
Rinus
Figital Revolution 
Great review of the Tri-X film grain. Back in the seventies and eighties we had more developer types. My choice was Promicrol by May&Baker. the concentrate was stored in 100ml pharmacy bottles and used to be diluted 1:4. It was fantastic and ASA speed could easily be doubles. It was the developer that kept shadow detail even if you made 2 stops mistakes. The grain was very fine.
I see today that grain is a desired aspect but in those days grain was a sad byproduct. Getting the shot far outweighed any grain or for that matter what it looked like.
Tri-X in 35 mm was the favourite of fashion and sport photographers. Skin tones were light and the grain was sharply defined.
later in my commercial lab a 3.5 gal dip and dunk tank with D76 became the normal processing method. D76 was not the best untill it was replenished with D76R. When a new batch was mixed maybe 3 months later the only reason was dissolved silver that added density to the films. The results were always great with a raised mid tone curve and due to its increased red sensitivity a beautiful lighter pearly skin tone.
But then Kodak messed with Tri-X Pan and many photographers never figured it out. They came out with Tri-X Pan Professional. The daylight speed was 320 and incandescent was 400. The toe of the curve was longer. Both sheet film and 120/220 could then be bought in both types. Unless you were good at deciphering spec sheets Kodak provided no dialog regarding the differences. The processing times in all developers were also different. We could no longer batch process the two together.
A number of other brand films with that speed became the competition and may be it was just all Kodak marketing.
In your tests I prefer Rodinal but D76 1:3 is a close second.
Thanks for doing this.
Rinus