Tri-X fogging in DiXactol

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread

Does someone have an idea that could help me out with this ? I am doing tests with DiXactol (different films, distilled or tap water, contamination of tank etc) and tried yesterday to develop a series of Tri-X 120 films, using a new tank, new volumetric containers and deionized water (bought from a super market) to mix it with. Opted for the two bath version. I have adjusted the dev. time to 4+4 minutes (instead of 5+5) because of a higher working temperature (26 deg. celcius). The first film came out fogged and the stain was quite strong, so I decided not to pass the film through the second bath after fixing (to increase the stain). For the remaining 6 films, I followed the same procedure and had slight fogging but quite unpleasant high max. density (high contrast) and not really satisfactory shadow detail. I believe my exposure was correct (measure with a Minolta spot meter) so I am really puzzled... Normally, The development would not affect the shadow detail, but I am almost sure that usin Perceptol I would get better shadow detail (or I have made a gross mistake while exposing the films). More than that, a two bath developer should not give high max density, unless something is wrong with it (dilution, etc). Finally, it is the first time that I get this fogging with DiXactol, and I have developed APX, Pan F and Technical Pan with it with no such problems. Could the high temperature be the problem (the normal working temp. with DiXacltol is 24 degrees, and its maker claims that using it at 25 would not be a problem, you would even not have to adjust the dev. time. I have surpassed that limit by 1 degree and heavily adjusted the dev duration (by -20% !!!). I would more tend to bellieve that the Dev-Film combination could be problematic, judging by the fact that this time was the only one that the first dev. bath came out of the tank having a deep purple colour... I was surprised, thinking that it would affect the development of the next film, but the results were the same... Would this colouring of the chemical mean it was oxidised ? Why would Tri-X oxidise the developer ? I am sure there was no chemical contamination (such as the second alkali bath getting in the first). Another (paranoid) thing that came in my mind was that the deionised water contained some acid substance (put there to keep the domestic irons cleaner of salt deposits, for instance). I guess if it was the case, it would be written on the container...

-- George Papantoniou (papanton@hol.gr), July 23, 2001

Answers

Did you check your new tank did not have a leak? I dont know about diexactol since I have never used it, but I use a cathecol formula of my own and I have never experienced something like what you are talking about, specially since what I beleive is the formula in diexactol the second bath is the activating agent for the highlights. (e.i. stronger development). I work in the water purification business and I assure you DI water has no acid added to it! On the other hand if you bought the water from one of those achines that dispense water, then it is not deionozed, it is made with reverse osmosis, and this could have a lower pH depending on the feed water and additives to prevent scaling in the membranes. I would try again with DISTILLED water, and an old tank you are sure does not have leaks. Good luck!

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (jorgegm@worldnet.att.net), July 23, 2001.

George ; I've pretty much given up on the 2-bath version of DiXactol, as I found it quite unpredictable and difficult to control - the risks just outweigh the potential benefits. The single bath version seems to work better and to be more consistent. Perhaps you could run a test roll of Tri-X through a single bath to see if the problem remains. Final thought ; what EI did you use for the Tri-X - DiXactol does seem to give a speed quite close to the published EI.

-- fw (finneganswake@altavista.net), July 23, 2001.

Hello George! One thing comes to my mind: Did you get ANY bath B into Bath A? I'm testing catechine two-bath developer myself, using Catechine plus another developing agent in bath A and Potassium hydroxid in bath B. Both are made from stock solution (1:14-1:19) and used one-shot.

If bath A gets conterminated with bath B development starts right away leading to high densities, as any two bath advantage is lost. Did you reuse your baths?

Kind regards,

Wolfram Kollig

-- Wolfram Kollig (kollig@ipfdd.de), July 24, 2001.


George I am sorry you are encountering trouble with Tri-X in DiXactol. There are a few older style films, and Tri-X is one of them, where base fog is very high in DiXactol. It is still printable, but it gives a murky look which makes judging density and contrast very difficult. That said, I have a number of clients who swear by the combination including a leading London fashion photographer. I would personally recommend that you move to HP5 Plus which performs best of all in DiXactol in medium format. The new 400 Delta is pretty good too. For 35mm, I would recommend Delta 100 or T-Max100. Additionally, I strongly recommend that you move away from two bath development to single bath with partial stand development. This has been my recommendation for some time now in the notes sent out with DiXactol, and also on my web site (www.barrythornton.com) The effect of the partial stand development is to give the same highlight compensation while shadows are nursed up as two bath. The stain is greater however, as is the sharpness. Economy is better too usually. You should start with a time of about 9 minutes for pretty well all films (NOT Pan F or Technical Pan) and fine tune from there. This technique also completely overcomes the very occasional problem that occurs with negative unevenness or streaking with two bath due to contamination problems. Thousands of people use two bath DiXactol without problem, but most are switching to partial stand single bath because it gives even better results. The colour you are seeing drain from the tank is nothing to do with the developer. It s simply the anti-halation dye from the film. Some films have a really dark colour, others virtually nothing. There are many different colours too. It has no effect whatsoever on the development with DiXactol or any other developer. Hope that helps.

Barry Thornton

-- Barry Thornton (development.coachig@dial.pipex.com), July 24, 2001.


Thanks everyone,

Jorge I am sure the new tank has no leaks but I will check out the thing about the deionised water (and try to find the distilled one).

FW, I shot my Tri-X at E.I. 320, as recommended by Kodak almighty.

wolfram, no, I really take care not to get any of bath B in the developer, I have read how much harm can be done by doing this. I use my thermometer first in the bath A and then in B (after rinsing also...

Barry, thank you very much for your response, I am delighted to get some help from the guy who makes my developer... I guess I will have to try the single bath option, although I really enjoyed very much workinh with a two bath developer. I also get too often the strikes (uneven development) I even got it when I used the new tank and new everything. I am really puzzled about the purple colour that my first bath took after the Tri-X development, because I also gave my film a pre-development rinse (in order to clear the anti- halation dyes) before starting... Do you think the dyes are so strong that they can colourise the first bath so strongly (I am talking about a STRONG purple colour)...

Anyway, I will share my experience of the single bath DiXactol development soon...

-- George Papantoniou (papanton@hol.gr), July 24, 2001.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ