N
Nick R.
Guest
TXT=Tri-X? I haven't tried that with HC-110, only Tmax3200 pro. But I'm not surprised at Tri-x looking good at any speed. It's a great film.
Adventures In Tri-X @ 12,800
- Thread starter dcsang
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 27
- Views: Views 2K
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
kaiyen said:Dave,
Now _that_ is what I'm talking about! Nice work. It's nice to see such great results in a situation that really, really cried out for pushing.
fyi - grain is the result of the emulsion's grain structure (a grainy film can't be less grainy than the graininess of the film, exposure, dev time and dev temperature. I am pretty sure it's overexposure that makes it grainier - that's why people go for the thinnest neg than can get (different standard of "thin" than what you got, of course). So the underexposure itself didn't increase the grain, but the looong time in the developer did. And "long" is relative to the developer - using a really active developer for a short amount of time would have yielded a lot of grain, too, since that developer would usually be used for a much shorter amount of time.
allan
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Thanks for the clarification Allan
I've been busy and only just got a chance to digest this now.. stupid work getting in the way of more "important" things
Cheers
Dave
aizan
Veteran
so you exposed at 4500 and developed for 12,800? why not develop for 4500 and increase contrast while you print? wouldn't you get less grain and risk of blown hilights?
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
aizan said:
Mainly because I'm not going to print from the neg.
Scanning produces fine images that are printable from digital files.
I'm not sure what these negs would look like if I tried to print them via an enlarger and dry print process (seeing as how I have neither a darkroom nor wet print capabilities in house nor for rent).
Cheers
Dave
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Nick R. said:
TXT = tri-x 400
TXP = tri-x 320 (mf and lf only)
TMX = tmax 100
TMY = tmax 400
TMZ = tmax 3200
allan
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Dave,
Oops. I missed the information about overexposing by 1.5 stops, even after rating at 12800. That is about 4500, as aizan points out. Your results are still very impressive, but that explains the nice shadow detail, regardless.
The reality is that, if you're pushing any film beyond 3200, you aren't going to be spot metering the shadows anyway. And no developer out there will give you that much speed, so the idea of doing actual speed tests out at that EI range is kind of ridiculous. So it comes down to aesthetics, really. For instance:
http://www.kaiyen.com/photos/gallery/albums/film tests/txt/normal_rodinal3200.jpg
vs.
http://www.kaiyen.com/photos/gallery/albums/film tests/txt/normal_microphen3200.jpg
Is comparing Rodinal vs. Microphen. The ultimate result of my test is that you can get similar results re: shadows, midtones, and contrast control between the two developers. But forget about speed - zone III is just gone, and there isn't enough exposure to get a zone I density reading. So it's about look.
Anyway. I hope to try out rating TXT at 12800 and shooting with no exposure compensation. let's see how it comes out...
allan
Oops. I missed the information about overexposing by 1.5 stops, even after rating at 12800. That is about 4500, as aizan points out. Your results are still very impressive, but that explains the nice shadow detail, regardless.
The reality is that, if you're pushing any film beyond 3200, you aren't going to be spot metering the shadows anyway. And no developer out there will give you that much speed, so the idea of doing actual speed tests out at that EI range is kind of ridiculous. So it comes down to aesthetics, really. For instance:
http://www.kaiyen.com/photos/gallery/albums/film tests/txt/normal_rodinal3200.jpg
vs.
http://www.kaiyen.com/photos/gallery/albums/film tests/txt/normal_microphen3200.jpg
Is comparing Rodinal vs. Microphen. The ultimate result of my test is that you can get similar results re: shadows, midtones, and contrast control between the two developers. But forget about speed - zone III is just gone, and there isn't enough exposure to get a zone I density reading. So it's about look.
Anyway. I hope to try out rating TXT at 12800 and shooting with no exposure compensation. let's see how it comes out...
allan
kaiyen
local man of mystery
aizan said:
What I find intriguing is that the contrast is pretty okay despite what would be some pretty serious overdevelopment, at least in comparison to my 30:00 for 3200. Dave's results imply that he has achieved roughly "normal" development time at 51:00 with reduced agitation, for EI 4500.
This suggests that the reduced agitation is controlling contrast. I use 10s inversion ever 3 minutes. That's the only reason I can think of why the highlights didn't go crazy.
allan
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
kaiyen said:
Hey Allan,
I'd like to see your results without any exposure comp. Please post it when you do get some done
I followed the PhotoSig article merely because it looked as though exposures seemed to be.. umm.. how do I put this... "more correct" or more contrasty. I know that if I over expose say XP2 @ 200 and develop as though it were "normal" (i.e. 400) I get more contrast - I figured that this would or could also occur here. I guess I'd have to expose at 12,800 without comp to find out though huh
I don't think spot metering is the answer either.
It's a bit difficult for me to put into words but I will try to do so
One light, darkened room, subject right there in front of you, light just in frame but not "close" to the subject. Center weighted exposure will yield a subject that is "too darK' (i.e. the light bulb will be "fine" per se.. but my subject.. black as coal
). Now, adjust my self so that subject only is in the frame, and based on internal metering, the shutter speed (assuming I'm using aperture priority) drops and I get a "correct" exposure.I hope that sort of explains what I was trying to get at here
Cheers
Dave