# Pulling Tri-x with Perceptol



## Catcus (Mar 22, 2013)

Hello. I am currently living in the Southwest desert and working with the particular and blinding light here. Up till now I have been shooting tri-x at 320 and souping it in perceptol 1:1 for 10 minutes. The results are good but I am still lacking the tonal range I would like so that I could get my shadows and highlights all in one solid print. So, I want to pull my film. I was thinking of shooting tri-x at 200 and then pulling the film but don't know what percentage I should do this. Does anyone have suggestions? 

Just a note: I have seen a lot of results for pull processing with rodinal, however I am not particularly a fan of that developer and would like to stick with Perceptol. 

Also, the question I have above is for 35mm. I also plan on shooting 120 and 4x5. Should I expect to shoot at a slower speed to achieve the same affects as I do with 35mm? If so, any recommendations for the speed, the processing dilution/time, etc.?

Thank you in advance.


----------



## compur (Mar 22, 2013)

The Ilford data sheet gives times and dilutions for Tri-X in Perceptol @ 200:
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427133131459.pdf


----------



## Derrel (Mar 22, 2013)

My suggestion would be to make absolutely sure that you get ample exposure for the shadow areas...make SURE that when down-rating the film to E.I. 200 or E.I. 250 that you meter the shadows, and give ample bias to them. To keep the highlights well-controlled, you do want to use some what is called "Minus Development", meaning less than the standard length of development as suggested by the mfr., or less than your OWN, standard "normal" development time.

Also, I think it's best to pull film in high-contrast situations by using a tank development process where the film is agitated for 10 seconds at each 1-minute interval. This allows the film plenty of "standing" time in between agitations. What happens is the heavily-exposed highlight areas will exhaust the developer that is working on them; the less-exposed shadow areas will have developer that is not quite so exhausted, and this creates what are known as *edge and adjacency effects; *these edge and adjacency effects serve a function that is kind of similar to the effect created by applying unsharp masking in Photoshop*.

*I myself liked Kodak HC-110, Dilution B for pulling my Tri-X, and usually used E.I. 250. Part of the issue as to the "proper" time is what grade of paper you want to print the majority of negatives on, and also what kind of enlarger you have; some enlargers, like say the Leitz Focomat I am most familiar with, produce pretty "snappy" prints from negatives that are pretty "thin and delicate". Ballpark, let's say E.I. of 200 with Tri-X, try 25% less time, with agitations 10 seconds on the minute, and see how that prints on say Grade 3 paper with a good, long print development time.


----------



## Catcus (Mar 23, 2013)

Thank you for the previous two replies. 

In the case of the 120 film, the tank development will not be a problem. I think I am going to just have to experiment a bit and try the suggested 25% less time (that seems like a lot though; no?) However, if I process my sheet film, I will most likely use a jobo expert drum on a rotary base which will knock out any chance of minimizing the agitation. Again, I think the trick will just be experimentation even though I don't have the finances to really push that too far. So continued reflections will be greatly appreciated.





Derrel said:


> My suggestion would be to make absolutely sure that you get ample exposure for the shadow areas...make SURE that when down-rating the film to E.I. 200 or E.I. 250 that you meter the shadows, and give ample bias to them. To keep the highlights well-controlled, you do want to use some what is called "Minus Development", meaning less than the standard length of development as suggested by the mfr., or less than your OWN, standard "normal" development time.
> 
> Also, I think it's best to pull film in high-contrast situations by using a tank development process where the film is agitated for 10 seconds at each 1-minute interval. This allows the film plenty of "standing" time in between agitations. What happens is the heavily-exposed highlight areas will exhaust the developer that is working on them; the less-exposed shadow areas will have developer that is not quite so exhausted, and this creates what are known as *edge and adjacency effects; *these edge and adjacency effects serve a function that is kind of similar to the effect created by applying unsharp masking in Photoshop*.
> 
> *I myself liked Kodak HC-110, Dilution B for pulling my Tri-X, and usually used E.I. 250. Part of the issue as to the "proper" time is what grade of paper you want to print the majority of negatives on, and also what kind of enlarger you have; some enlargers, like say the Leitz Focomat I am most familiar with, produce pretty "snappy" prints from negatives that are pretty "thin and delicate". Ballpark, let's say E.I. of 200 with Tri-X, try 25% less time, with agitations 10 seconds on the minute, and see how that prints on say Grade 3 paper with a good, long print development time.


----------



## Helen B (Mar 23, 2013)

I used to use Perceptol a lot, and I would say that EI 320 was more of a push than a pull for Tri-X - ie gives negs with more contrast than normal, and poor shadow detail. Perceptol does reduce true film speed (measured in the standard sense) and 200 is closer to the true speed of Tri-X in it. Diluting 1+3 may help a little, but you may run into minimum volume problems.

Why not do some proper film tests if this is a combination you will be using a lot?


----------

