Tri-X 800 Rodinal

S

suedgar

Member
Local time
3:07 PM
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
29
View My Gallery
Hi all, I finally found (I think) a development time that was suitable for me. Rodinal 1+50, 15 mins, 20 degrees celsius at E.I 800. Gentle inversions for first 30 seconds, and 5 inversions every minute.

Give me some feedback guys, what do you think of it ?

timyd6.jpg
 
This is A LOT less grainy than I would have expected Tri-X pushed to 800 in Rodinal to look! Nice. I might try this.
 
I have to reduce my film speed with Rodinal rather than raise it. I shoot TriX at 250 and develop about the same way. There are probably better developers than Rodinal for pushing TriX (Microphen), but maybe Kaiyen will jump in here. He is very knowledgeable on developers. My film speed for TMax100 in Rodinal is 50, which is a pain because you have to use a tripod almost all the time. But I like the results.
 
NickTrop said:
This is A LOT less grainy than I would have expected Tri-X pushed to 800 in Rodinal to look! Nice. I might try this.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I also used a water bath to keep temperature constant, since its rather warm in Singapore for developing at 20 Degrees. I think the agitation also matters, anyone can confirm this?
 
yes most state that agitation affects contrast when using rodinal, more equals more I think

Been a while since I used it, I usually rated tri-x at 250 with it
 
I've done some Tri-X at Iso 800 in Acufine 1+3, 21°C for 16 mins - the negs came out on the dense side, so you might try to reduce the time down to 14 mins, always with gentle agitation, the tonality and acutance are good, and the grain is acceptable, here's an example:
2612612738_44d0a2559d_b.jpg
 
There are a lot of different topics in this thread, really.

First, there is the issue of true film speed. TXT in Rodinal is going to be 250 or so, no question. Period. What you are doing by shooting at 800, other than getting a faster shutter speed and/or more DOF, of course, is just increasing contrast (at the very least by decreased shadow detail). That can be accomplished by shooting at 250 and just modifying when printing or editing in PS, too. But having the extra "speed" of rating it at 800 is a nice thing, sure. But TXT is not 800 in Rodinal.

The other topic that has come up is grain. The biggest factor in grain is, of course, the film itself. TXT has big clumpy grain compared to, say, TMAX. Other than that, overexposure and overdevelopment can also add to grain. Note that overdevelopment is the results of a lot of different factors. Right temp, too long in soup. Right time, too high of a temperature. Right time, right temp, too much agitation. So yes, agitation has something to do with it.
 
What is about the "true speed" of Tri-X ? What do you get by shooting at the "true speed" ? Better quality , tonality , grain ?
 
kaiyen, all you say is nice, but I did it and that's all. Yes, TriX is grainy and should be so. I like it grainy and I like every sq. mm of it
 
oscroft said:
I'd really like to see a full-sized sample because reducing an image size in software can alter the way the grain looks, but the grain and tonality in that image do look a good bit better than I'd have expected from that combination.
Click to expand...

here is a bigger version...

tester1941copycn4.jpg
 
True speed merely means the speed at which a film produces sufficient shadow detail (Zone III in the zone system). You set the camera to that speed, generally to spot meter just that area, stop down 2 stops (moving it from middle grey to "shadow"), develop, and it'll come out with detail there. That is all it is.

The actual speed of a film in a particular developer is neither good nor bad, nor is it a rule by which someone must comply. I shoot TXT all over the place, even when souping in Rodinal, even though I know that the true speed is 250 for me (it might be different for you, btw). Sometimes because I need more speed (hey, if I need 800 or even 6400, then I do, bottom line), sometimes because I want more grain, sometimes because I want the contrastier look without having to do it in post. But there is a speed for a film in a developer. But that doesn't mean you need to shoot at it.

You will, however, benefit from shooting at it. For instance, if you put that shadow detail 2 stops below the mid tones, then you have a nice full 2 stops to go before you get to the midtones. Then you have 2 stops of latitude left to get your highlights. If it's really bright and contrasty outside, then you can decrease development a bit to pull the highlights back. The shadows are still detailed because you shot it at 250 (in this example), and you've managed to pull the highlights down from too bright to just right.

If you had shot it at 800, for instance, then you do make some tonal compromises. For instance, now your shadows are black. Your skin tones, which are midtones (zone IV to V for caucasians, I believe), are a bit darker than they should be (if the true speed is 250, and you shoot at 800, you've underexposed by quite a bit). So you now develop for longer to get the skin tones back up to normal, and now you've blown the highlights. You've squished down your tonal range then tried to stretch it back out during development.

Is that always bad? No, certainly not. It's a choice you're making, based on your own preferences. That's all.

Lazar - thanks for validating my existence by saying that my comments are nice. I feel so warm and fuzzy inside. Sheesh. I am just offering information. Don't take it personally as commentary about your methods. We all have our own methods. We choose what we want, based on our own subjective preferences. I have never, ever, made any comments to the contrary. Do what you want. I really don't care. But at least know the information and do things purposefully.
 
looks good, but I don't know why so many people like Rodinal higher sensitivities. you might try XTOL (nicer grain/tonality), or TMAX if you like the raw grainy feeling.

PS: nice beer he's drinking, but please serve in a frozen glass; a slice of lime optional.
 
Teus - Rodinal has slightly higher acutance than XTOL, and the punchiness from the grain is quite different. Also, the toe is _usually_ (but not always) longer, giving it a distinctive look in that regard. For some reason it is quite popular when pushing, and I'm not excepted in that regard by any means.
 
kaiyen said:
True speed merely means the speed at which a film produces sufficient shadow detail (Zone III in the zone system). You set the camera to that speed, generally to spot meter just that area, stop down 2 stops (moving it from middle grey to "shadow"), develop, and it'll come out with detail there. That is all it is.

The actual speed of a film in a particular developer is neither good nor bad, nor is it a rule by which someone must comply. I shoot TXT all over the place, even when souping in Rodinal, even though I know that the true speed is 250 for me (it might be different for you, btw). Sometimes because I need more speed (hey, if I need 800 or even 6400, then I do, bottom line), sometimes because I want more grain, sometimes because I want the contrastier look without having to do it in post. But there is a speed for a film in a developer. But that doesn't mean you need to shoot at it.

You will, however, benefit from shooting at it. For instance, if you put that shadow detail 2 stops below the mid tones, then you have a nice full 2 stops to go before you get to the midtones. Then you have 2 stops of latitude left to get your highlights. If it's really bright and contrasty outside, then you can decrease development a bit to pull the highlights back. The shadows are still detailed because you shot it at 250 (in this example), and you've managed to pull the highlights down from too bright to just right.

If you had shot it at 800, for instance, then you do make some tonal compromises. For instance, now your shadows are black. Your skin tones, which are midtones (zone IV to V for caucasians, I believe), are a bit darker than they should be (if the true speed is 250, and you shoot at 800, you've underexposed by quite a bit). So you now develop for longer to get the skin tones back up to normal, and now you've blown the highlights. You've squished down your tonal range then tried to stretch it back out during development.

Is that always bad? No, certainly not. It's a choice you're making, based on your own preferences. That's all.

Lazar - thanks for validating my existence by saying that my comments are nice. I feel so warm and fuzzy inside. Sheesh. I am just offering information. Don't take it personally as commentary about your methods. We all have our own methods. We choose what we want, based on our own subjective preferences. I have never, ever, made any comments to the contrary. Do what you want. I really don't care. But at least know the information and do things purposefully.
Click to expand...


Thanks a bunch....now I get a better picture 🙂

and yeah, that beer is great.
 
Hi Kaiyen,

So am I right to say that by shooting at the true speed, you get the most tonality ? Do you have some sample pictures to illustrate? Or anyone who has, please share.

Also, anyone can shed light on how tri-X can be done to look like Salgado's BW work ?
 
Well, Minor White and Ansel Adams did the early work on the Zone System, which is based on film speed as determined by shadow detail, and development to control highlights based on the contrast of a scene. Take a look at the tonal range of some of those images.

I would say that you maximize the usage of the film's tonal range when you shoot at the film's actual speed. 🙂
 
Kaiyen, again we agree, but I guess people want different things out of pictures. For instance, the image that started this thread is to me of a medium to low contrast scene. The old "expansion" of Ansel Adams' is somewhat what is being done (by exposure [a little bit] and development) on the opening image of this thread. That is why it looks OK, but they won't look so good with a stage scene indoor or a streetlight scene at night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom