Pushing Tri-X to 1600...advice?

I don't wish to be cruel, but many of the shots here show why not to push this film so hard if you can possibly avoid it. Many have either empty black voids where shadow detail should be (thats bec there is not detail in the neg) of flat muddy dark greys because efforts have been made to prevent these detail free black blocks being printed down, but in the process showing that it is an underexposed neg being printed. Others have seriously blown highlights.

There is no such thing as a free lunch and I feel that 1600 is actually a modest push for Tmax 3200 or D3200, never mind TriX! When you have no shadow in the neg you have that horrible decision to make: muddy dark grey or detail free black void and neither make for good prints.
 
So what do you do when you need ISO 800 or 1600? With my limited darkroom knowledge, you would either underexpose at 400 and try to fix in darkroom with high contrast filter/paper, or shoot at 1/8 or 1/4.

By the way a lot of great pictures here. I'm gonna be a best man at a wedding in may, and I'll try to take a few photos if I get a chance. I thought about arista premium and D-76 at 800 or 1600 and I see some nice pictures here with that combination.
 
Thank you all for the input and examples. One thing is for sure...I'm on the road now and will be shooting Tri-X pushed to 1600 tomorrow in New Orleans.

BTW...any other RFF shooters in New Orleans tomorrow? I'm sure I'll be taking occasional "hurricane" breaks :)

David.
 
Last edited:
Hey Dave,

I pushed Tri-x to 1600 quite often before. Souped in Rodinal 1+100 stand for 60mins (agitate at 30th minutes). the result was great, nice tonality, the grain is not so coarse.
 
Photographers, notably photojournalists, have (and continue to) pushed Tri-X to EI 1600 for decades.

Can easily be done, the methodology is all that varies.
 
Tri-X at 1600 can get contrasty, but I often like that look. This was with Xtol 1+1.


4small.jpg
 
Yes, but the results were not great in most cases hence the development of faster films like D3200 and Tmax 3200. Many PJs pushed TriX because they had no choice, but now we have, and at 1600 any of the 3200 films (true speed 800-1200) will have a good stop more shadow detail and the grain is about the same.

Stand development is not a full solution as it can introduce artifacts or uneven development or bromide drag marks in even tones. That can ruin shots. The only complete solution is a dedicated film that will reliably produce the results without taking risks, however small you may think they are. Night scenes rarely show up uneven development or other nasties, but shots inside a dimly lit room with white walls will. In a big way!

Someone asked for the solution earlier, well with Neopan 1600 gone (good for 640) stopping the gap between 400 films and the 3200 films at 1000 upward, you can push TriX say up to 640-800 and use the 3200 films for anything above 800. This prevents you getting into the risky TriX at 1600 territory. As as long time user of D3200 in 35mm I have just shot a body of work with Tmax 3200 (after testing of course) and why anyone would shoot TriX at 1600 rather than use this film is beyond me, unless they are deliberately looking for an extreme contrast look with empty black and hot highlights. In that case you are not shooting a 1600 film at all, you are shooting a 400 film effectively pushed perhaps a stop at most and just overdeveloped.



Colin Corneau said:
Photographers, notably photojournalists, have (and continue to) pushed Tri-X to EI 1600 for decades.

Can easily be done, the methodology is all that varies.
Click to expand...
 
Turtle said:
Yes, but the results were not great in most cases hence the development of faster films like D3200 and Tmax 3200. Many PJs pushed TriX because they had no choice, but now we have, and at 1600 any of the 3200 films (true speed 800-1200) will have a good stop more shadow detail and the grain is about the same.
Click to expand...

I'm not totally sure I'd agree about the comparability of the grain, but otherwise I agree with you 100%. People often forget that sometimes, people used to do things the hard way because there was no easy way. For me, photography is about getting pictures, not about purifying the soul through suffering.

Cheers,

R.
 
Sorry guys but I think you're veering OT. The question was what to do if only Tri-X is at hand. Suggesting other films is no help.
 
I agree with Roger 100%. The grain is different, but I'd rather have an extra stop in the shadows most of the time. The pushed look is all good and fine, but it's not the only or even best solution in my mind.

It seems to me in this age of scanning, people are more likely to push because it gives them more of the look they want from the beginning (strong contrast). I'd much rather have a negative that prints and scans well, and if I want more contrast, add it after scanning or during printing. I'm guessing a lot of the pushed and scanned images I see online would print like crap in a darkroom.

For those who have never wet printed before, it's kind of eye opening to take a normal negative and print it at grade 0 and grade 5, and compare those with the 'vaunted' no-corrections-applied scan. That latter bit is a bit of myth in my mind... But still, a flat scan is much closer to grade 0 (or beyond) than it is to grade 2-3 and definitely 5. It's ok to take it and add an aggressive toning curve to achieve the final contrast you want.

Now, if you absolutely need to push, I'd recommend a one or two stop push in something like XTOL, DD-X, Microphen, etc. Or if using Tri-X, try 1250 or 1600 in Diafine and deal with the sometimes odd contrast.
 
At ISO 1600, I've been happiest with HC-110 1:100, 1 hour, agitate every 5 minutes. Double that for 3200. It's not as good as box speed, obviously, but that's the best I've been able to do as far as retaining shadow detail and keeping the grain reasonable.
 
Good info.

So for future reference, TMax 3200 shot at 1600. Do I develop the same, or pull for one stop? I assume I develop normally, but treat it as a 1600 speed film...
 
I shoot TMZ at 1600 a fair amount and develop it in XTOL 1:1 using the times in the XTOL pdf for EI 1600. It seems to work for me. You might find you like a longer/shorter time.

Below are a bunch of shots of Tri-X at 1250 in Diafine. It works pretty well. I've never done a side-by-side comparison of Tri-X in Diafine versus Tri-X in XTOL (maybe I'll do that this weekend if my Diafine is still good), but I'm not convinced it's necessarily magic. The Tri-X I've shot and pushed in XTOL also looked decent. On the other Diafine is certainly easy to use, so it has that going for it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgray1/tags/ei1250/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom