Digital BW, The Print

As someone noted the ISO rating is correct as defined by the testing 
standard for film speed. But as with the mileage rating on a car, you 
mileage will vary. I normally do a "compensation development," agitation 
for 30 seconds every 3 minutes and one minute up front. The development 
time for my camera light meter combination is 21 minutes at 68 deg F. 
Since living the the tropics my cold water is sometimes as warm as 78, I 
like the large leeway this development gives me. The development is 
pretty good from 68 to 78 (with the normal compensation for temp). I 
have used Rodinal on Tri-X 4x5 with 1:75 dilution. That gives a pretty 
good mix that has a lot of latitude working with a large temp range.

I know I could put in some sort bath system to keep the developer at 68 
degs F, but with the latitude I get with TFX-2 it doesn't seem to be 
necessary. They scan quite nicely.

I suspect that Tri-X has change over the years and if I remember the ISO 
rating system is relatively new - maybe the late 60's. I'm pretty 
pleased with my negatives.

Truman



Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

> Truman Prevatt writes:
>
> > So the true speed of Tri-X is really 200 (180 for sheet film).
> > I've started using TFX-2 and with that developer Trix-X
> > is a little faster about 250.
>
> Do you still use standard development, i.e., as if it were exposed at
> the nominal ISO rating instead of a lower rating?
>
> Didn't Tri-X once have a much lower rating, which was raised in the
> 1950s or something?
>
> Strangely, my negatives usually seem to be _overexposed_ when I scan
> them, but maybe that is just my careless development (I'm very casual in
> development, and I'm always surprised to see that the results still look
> better than what I get from a lab).