Processing Double-X and/or Tri-X in Sprint Developer

James Machado · March 1, 2020

I'm going to be shooting and hand processing some B&W 16mm film in our university darkroom. This is my first try at this, so I am going to keep the procedure simple by processing negatives only. The library is acquiring a Lasergraphics Scanstation that I will be able to use, so I'm not too worried about only having negatives to show for the work.

The Art Department owns huge quanitites of Sprint Standard B&W developer, stop bath and fixer. I've been given permission to use as much or as little of this chemistry as I need to do this work. Since much of my project costs are tied up in supplies and film stock, I want to take advantage of this offer even if it impacts the quality of the processed film a bit. I mainly just want to get decent looking images that are watchable. I'm not looking to compete with a lab and I'm not trying for an experimental bucket look.

Sprint provides developing time for Double-X so I've got a sense of what I need to do. I was wondering if there was any value in shooting Tri-X and processing it as a negative. What is your take on quality, latitude, and likelihood of success using a standard B&W developer on Tri-X to get good images?

Can you offer any advice about developing times/temperatures using this developer?

Is there anything I need to do while shooting in order to get good images when processing tri-x as a negative? Do I need to alter the ISO?

Right now, this project is 16mm, but in the future if I start to do some of this work with Super8, I will be shoehorned into using Tri-X since they don't can Double X in super 8.

Any and all advice would be much appreciated.

Stephen Perera · March 2, 2020

Jarin Blaschke (oscar-nominated cinematographer of The Lighthouse who is in this forum and comes in on threads) recommends shooting on Tri-X over Double X in 16mm format. I shoot Double X cos my lab of choice, Cinelab London doesn't do Tri-X processing so I have no choice....if not I would follow his advice. Have a read in this thread where he tells me....

"Thanks for saying so! If you're shooting 16mm, I'd highly suggest Tri-X instead of Double X, which was sloppy and soft by comparison in 16mm. Rate it at 100, develop as a negative, and give it softer development . At "Normal", double-X seems to have a gigantic shoulder and does a poor job separating highlights from midtones, which your video reinforces. Better to develop less and then "print" with higher contrast. The shorter development time will straighten the characteristic curve. Or, again, just use Tri-X and develop as a negative."

James Machado · March 2, 2020

Fantastic resource. Thank you! What do you think he means by “soft development”?

Stephen Perera · March 2, 2020

5 minutes ago, James Machado said:

Fantastic resource. Thank you! What do you think he means by “soft development”?

"soft development" - he means to 'pull' it a bit......i.e. less time in the developer......you will get a more usable negative to do what you want with it....its a way of getting more information all over the negative instead of baking in more contrast etc....

Edited March 2, 2020 by Stephen Perera

James Machado · March 3, 2020

Pull it relative to what because there is no stated development time for standard b&w developer and tri-x.

shorter duration compared to XX?

Stephen Perera · March 4, 2020

Digital Truth is a great resource. Here are the developer options for Double X. Remember this film is put into canisters for photographers so there's loads of information out there to process this film.

https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=%Kodak+Double-X%&Developer=&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C&TimeUnits=D

Here's a thread on Tri-X developed as a negative:

Jarin Blaschke · March 4, 2020

I still stand by it- 16mm is soft already, but 7222 definitely goes too far for my tastes. Mucky when compared to tri-X. I asked Fotokem to “pull” the tri-X one stop, but I don’t know what that means when you’re supposedly cross-processing. Whatever time and temp they used, it looked very good. I’m salivating to do it in 35mm one day.

I do a lot of personal still photography work. I’ve never used Sprint, the classic student darkroom developer. I’d be very curious to see tri-X in Rodinal at 1+49 to 1+74 dilution. Should be very sharp in a distinctly grainy way (unlike the conventional mushy double-X grain in D96) and should straighten out the curve with lots of highlight latitude and separation. Once you dilute it, Rodinal is very very very economical and the concentrate lasts a long time.

j

James Machado · March 5, 2020

2 hours ago, Jarin Blaschke said:

I still stand by it- 16mm is soft already, but 7222 definitely goes too far for my tastes. Mucky when compared to tri-X. I asked Fotokem to “pull” the tri-X one stop, but I don’t know what that means when you’re supposedly cross-processing. Whatever time and temp they used, it looked very good. I’m salivating to do it in 35mm one day.

I do a lot of personal still photography work. I’ve never used Sprint, the classic student darkroom developer. I’d be very curious to see tri-X in Rodinal at 1+49 to 1+74 dilution. Should be very sharp in a distinctly grainy way (unlike the conventional mushy double-X grain in D96) and should straighten out the curve with lots of highlight latitude and separation. Once you dilute it, Rodinal is very very very economical and the concentrate lasts a long time.

j

Thanks for the input. I really appreciate it. As this is my first go and the chemistry is free, I'd like to see what results I get with Sprint (1:9 working solution is standard). My expectations are tempered, but I think I'm definitely going to go with Tri-x and process negative.

Since I'm a total novice, can you offer any suggestions as to temperatures and times to get a good image? I know you said soft development, but I don't have the experience to follow you. If possible, can you explain what I should do as you would a child and then after this go around, I can start to experiment. I'm just trying to start someplace.

James Machado · March 6, 2020

On 3/4/2020 at 5:50 PM, Jarin Blaschke said:

I still stand by it- 16mm is soft already, but 7222 definitely goes too far for my tastes. Mucky when compared to tri-X. I asked Fotokem to “pull” the tri-X one stop, but I don’t know what that means when you’re supposedly cross-processing. Whatever time and temp they used, it looked very good. I’m salivating to do it in 35mm one day.

I do a lot of personal still photography work. I’ve never used Sprint, the classic student darkroom developer. I’d be very curious to see tri-X in Rodinal at 1+49 to 1+74 dilution. Should be very sharp in a distinctly grainy way (unlike the conventional mushy double-X grain in D96) and should straighten out the curve with lots of highlight latitude and separation. Once you dilute it, Rodinal is very very very economical and the concentrate lasts a long time.

j

What do you think about this as a start point?

http://www.charlieegleston.com/uploads/2/1/7/5/21756736/hand-processing_handbook.pdf

Charlie suggests 3 minute developing on TRi-X as a negative. If I combine this pull with rating the tri-x at 100 ISO, do you think I'm in good shape at least to begin running tests?

Jarin Blaschke · March 7, 2020

With under 5 minute development, you run a serious risk of inaccurate and uneven development. Drop the temperature and dilution to at least get you to 6 minutes. Below that development time, you can not deliver dependable results... in my opinion.

Extra development will not get you speed, only density in highlights, and thus contrast. True film speed is defined by shadow information, nothing else. The only exception is very high contrast expansion through development, +2 zone expansion and upward. With that kind of contrast expansion, you’ll get some extra shadow information (maybe 1/2 stop), but only peripherally next to the giant highlight boost. I don’t like dense negatives in small formats (like 35mm) because they can shoulder off and block up. A well exposed, but gently developed negative is the best way to achieve a sharp, finer grained and full tonal scale image in a small format.

I don’t give expanded development to motion picture film. The negative is too small and the image degradation is too much. In my opinion it’s best suited to large format plates in still photography.

J

Jarin Blaschke · March 7, 2020

On 3/5/2020 at 1:21 AM, James Machado said:

Thanks for the input. I really appreciate it. As this is my first go and the chemistry is free, I'd like to see what results I get with Sprint (1:9 working solution is standard). My expectations are tempered, but I think I'm definitely going to go with Tri-x and process negative.

Since I'm a total novice, can you offer any suggestions as to temperatures and times to get a good image? I know you said soft development, but I don't have the experience to follow you. If possible, can you explain what I should do as you would a child and then after this go around, I can start to experiment. I'm just trying to start someplace.

As I said, Rodinal is an excellent developer and dirt cheap. 98% of the developer working solution is water... which is actually the most expensive part because it should be distilled. Would you use an unknown lens because it’s free, or use something excellent for under $1 per batch?

j

Stephen Perera · March 13, 2020

I am a Kodak Xtol fan at 1+1 dilution - I always use distilled water when I develop my BW and C41 rolls.......saying this by sheer coincidence I'm getting RODINAL delivered....bought the original version one sold here in Europe by Foto R3 for example.....

https://www.foto-r3.com/es/rodinal-500ml.html

The oldest commercial developer still in production, Rodinal is famous for its contrast control and flexibility. Outstanding keeping qualities make this a great developer you can always rely on. Highly concentrated and offering unrivaled value at dilutions ranging from 1+25 to 1+100. Recommended dilution: 1+50 for general purpose work.

Rodinal can be used for contrast control by varying the dilution, allowing you to use a single bottle to produce negatives to suit your requirements. The recommended 1+50 diluton produces crisp negatives of normal contrast with slightly more obvious grain than standard fine-grain developers. Lower dilutions (eg. 1+25) produce high contrast images; whereas at higher dilutions (eg. 1+75 or 1+100) Rodinal has a compensating effect and can be used to render high contrast scenes with normal contrast. The appearance of grain is also proportional to the dilution, so at 1+25 it is at its most obvious, and at 1+100 it is at its finest. (Note: if you are not experienced with this developer, we do not recommend using the 1+100 dilution unless you want low contrast results.) Extreme dilutions can be used for special purposes: 1+10 will develop ortho film, and 1+300 will produce pictorial results from document-type films.

One of Rodinal's undoubted attributes is its incredible shelf life, with half-opened bottles reported to last over 40 years. The solution is light straw colored when first opened, and during the course of a year turns darker until eventually becoming deep purple-brown. Don't be fooled into throwing it out! Rodinal continues to perform perfectly regardless of the color of the solution, and is the ideal product to keep on your shelf if you often find your usual developer is exhausted.

James Machado · March 15, 2020

Also, back in the 1990s, Eastman's Tri-X reversal had specifically laid out the ISO and processing for negative cross-processing. See the link:

https://www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles/motion/7278_TI0603.pdf

I'm not saying that the two stocks, 7278 and 7266 are the same, but I find it interesting.

Michael Carter · April 7, 2020

Sprint may be what Pittsburgh Filmmakers used in an open house to develop 16mm tri-x reversed head shots of us talking short takes. It was all very fats. 2 min do develop. Must have been used straight. It was in a great big tub bottle like 10 gallons or more.

Ethan Berry · June 17, 2023

I have done clip test with Ilford XP4 double perf in Sprint 9-1 recently. This is the same dilution that I use for 35mm still negative development.

Shot on my Filmo, rating it at 400 in daylight by mistake.

I pulled the film one stop and got a good quality negative. The acetate is clear and there is a dense triangle in the space between the perfs, (I presume is a reference mark from the factory). Next test is pushing one stop to hopefully get more contrast.

No scans yet.