400 to 1600 ISO

[dazedgonebye]

Ok, so now I’m a veteran of 7 or 8 rolls of film developed in my Patterson tank in Barry’s 2 bath formula…next challenge, pushing film.
I’ve got a load of recently expired Tri-X in 135 and no fast 120 film.
I want to be able to shoot at 400 to 1600 iso. What film/developer combinations should I consider?
My first impulse is to buy Tri-X in 400 iso for the 120 as well, if for no other reason than to keep things simple. On the other hand, Neopan 400 is about $1.25 cheaper per roll. On the other, other hand, I read nice things said about HP-5.
At my experience level, I value a bullet-proof developing process about as highly as theoretical image quality.

Suggestions?

 

[Arvay]

I had Tmax 400 New in Xtol (6.5 minutes, stock) with nice (to me) results
few are in my gallery. here is one more:

 

[dazedgonebye]

Looks very good.
Is that pushed?

 

[Arvay]

Looks very good.
Is that pushed?

Yes, it is Tmax 400 new shot as 1600

 

[vieri]

I would recommend Tri-X at 1250 (or even 1600) processed in Diafine. Some samples here:

works on planes

MP, 2/35, Tri-X @ 1000, Diafine

for orchestral rehearsals

MP, 2/90, Tri-X @ 1200, Diafine

MP, 2/35, Tri-X @ 1000, Diafine

on the street

MP, 2/35, Tri-X @ 1000, Diafine

A very good combination IMHO.

 

[kaiyen]

So the requisite diafine recommendation is out of the way 🙂

I find TXT at 1600 is no problem at all. It is a far more forgiving film than HP5 in terms of shadow detail. I can get a legit 560-640 out of it in a phenidone developer like Microphen, whereas shadow detail drops really fast with HP5 with decrease in exposure. 560 is already pushing it and noticeably underexposed. By 800, IMO, shadows are gone. I have not shot Neopan 400.

I would recommend TXT in Microphen for up to 1600 no problem. Looks great at 800, too. If you prefer liquid dev's, then there is DDX or F76, both of which are basically liquid equivalents of Microphen.

 

[vieri]

So the requisite diafine recommendation is out of the way 🙂

Yep, I thought I'd take care of it first, why not 😀 Diafine works pretty well with Tri-X (and PX, why not even HP5, FP4 & PANF) IMHO, but if you don't agree I am all ears on the why 🙄

 

[kaiyen]

I prefer more control over my development process, that's all. Besides, I don't want to always shoot TXT at 1250 because I use Diafine. But I don't want to switch to, say, FP4 in order to shoot at a slower speed.

 

[vieri]

I prefer more control over my development process, that's all. Besides, I don't want to always shoot TXT at 1250 because I use Diafine. But I don't want to switch to, say, FP4 in order to shoot at a slower speed.

Neither do I - but the OP asked about pushing Tri-X, not general use of Tri-X: for pushing Tri-X, I find Diafine the best solution around. If you want to shoot Tri-X at 400 ISO, don't use Diafine, use Rodinal, X-Tol, D-76, ID-11, HC, Ilfosol S, all work well with non-pushed Tri-X.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Perhaps I should clarify my needs a bit.

I plan to keep doing all normal development in Barry's 2 bath developer. I like it. It's easy, cheap and seems bullet proof.

Now and again, I will want to push 400iso film as far as 1600iso. I'm only interested in developer/film combinations for that application.

 

[kaiyen]

My fault for deviated from the original purpose, Steve. FWIW, I am not against Diafine for this purpose, I still just prefer more control over my contrast and sharpness during development.

I have had excellent results with TXT at 800 and 1600 (you don't say _only_ 1600, just "as far as" 1600) with Microphen, and with Rodinal using modified (ie - stand) development. Also great results with FX-39 but that's hard to get.

Also, I like TXT for these purposes. It tolerates pushing extremely well.

 

[vieri]

Perhaps I should clarify my needs a bit.

I plan to keep doing all normal development in Barry's 2 bath developer. I like it. It's easy, cheap and seems bullet proof.

Now and again, I will want to push 400iso film as far as 1600iso. I'm only interested in developer/film combinations for that application.

Steve, for what you are asking, I would suggest (again) Tri-X rated at 1600 developed in Diafine. It gives very good & consistent results & very easy to obtain (3+3 min, or 4+4 if you wish - no big difference, if any at all). Grain under control, contrast under control, highlights under control (Diafine is a compensating developer), developer lasts forever (you can reuse bath A & B for a year or so, provided you don't let any of bath B into bath A), very cheap solution with very good results. Hard to beat IMHO, but of course this are just my .02.

 

[dazedgonebye]

How does diafine differ from the Barry's formula I'm currently using?
I know I can't really push with Barry's...and Diafine isn't good for slower speed films (???).

 

[kaiyen]

Diafine works with slower films. But you asked about pushing. Diafine will give you a legit 1250 with TXT, so 1600 will be only a slight loss in shadow detail.

 

[Fotohuis]

In principle for push processing you can use all speed enhanced developers:
Diafine (BKA), Emofin (Tetenal), SLD (SPUR), DD-X and Microphen (Ilford). Depending on developer and film combination you will win about 2/3 - 1 1/3 F stop.

Diafine - Tri-X (400) is a pretty good exception with a real iso 1000 for this iso 400 film.
For the rest you're turning up the contrast index (C.I.) so making the log D curve of the film more steep. In fact by underexposure and a bit longer development time. One of the reasons you will loosing some shadow detail with push processing and you will have some more grain.

 

[photophorous]

Do you scan your negs or print in a darkroom? Do you like big fat grain and lots of shadow detail, or do you prefer finer grain with less shadow detail? I prefer something in between and I scan, so my comments are based on what works best for a Coolscan V.

I do not like TriX in Diafine. The compensating effects handle high contrast scenes amazingly well, but if your shooting in moderate to low contrast lighting, everything comes out muddy. Also, I find the grain to be very jagged and sandpaper-ish...not big, but ugly to my eyes.

I recently started experimenting with DD-X in search of a good fast film/dev combo, and so far I think this developer is great. I think TriX @1600 looks great in DD-X, with more normal contrast and smoother grain than what you get from Diafine. DD-X gives less shadow detail than Diafine but not as much less as I expected, and it scans much better.

I also like Neopan 1600 in undiluted D76, over TriX in Diafine. Grain is similar to Tri-X at 400 in D76 1:1. I have not tried Neopan 1600 in DD-X yet, so I'm not sure how it compares to D76, but I think it will be a good combo...I'll find out soon.

Paul

 

[dazedgonebye]

I scan...

I've ordered some diafine and tri-x, so I'll be giving that a try. I imagine I'll mostly have high contrast situations, but I'm not sure.

 

[photophorous]

I scan...

I've ordered some diafine and tri-x, so I'll be giving that a try. I imagine I'll mostly have high contrast situations, but I'm not sure.

Well, it works very well in high contrast situations, and maybe the grain won't bother you. Here are a few high contrast examples, exposed at 1250.

One good thing about Diafine is that it lasts forever, so if you find it's only well suited for certain situations, you can leave it sitting around until you need it.

Good luck.

Paul

 

[dazedgonebye]

My tri-x 120 film just arrived. I honestly don't think I'll be shooting a lot of this. I just want the tool in my box so I can look for low light opportunities.

Love that dog shot.

 

[iamzip]

Okay, someone please explain to me (recently returned to developing) how to push film using Diafine, since time has no effect? Do you just shoot it at 1600 (or 1250) and the Diafine will automatically push it?