Advice requested--Tri-X 400 @ 1600 in Xtol

T

traveler_101

American abroad
Local time
11:18 PM
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
1,113
Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

Does anyone have a take on tri-x in xtol for 35mm. Exposed at 1600. Digital truth has it either at 9 or 9.75 minutes. Any advice also on a development routine?
 
I've pushed HP5 and Neopan 400 routinely to 1600 in XTOL 1:1 using the times published on the Kodak XTOL data sheet online. It quotes large and small tank developing times. I use the small tank times. Not a great fan of Tri-X pushed, so can't be specific. Good luck.
 
topoxforddoc said:
I've pushed HP5 and Neopan 400 routinely to 1600 in XTOL 1:1 using the times published on the Kodak XTOL data sheet online. It quotes large and small tank developing times. I use the small tank times. Not a great fan of Tri-X pushed, so can't be specific. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks. They have it at 9.75 min @ 20 C. If you don't like Tri-X pushed, what 400 speed film do you use for pushing?
 
As in my reply, HP5 and Neopan 400 is my usual go to film stock. I shoot a fair number of gigs either at 800 or 1600 depending on the lighting at the venue.
 
I once tried a couple of film options for 1600 in Xtol stock solution, not 1+1. Tri-x was by far the one with the smallest grain (also tested Tmax 400, HP5, Neopan 1600, and Delta 3200), beyond that it is a matter of taste, of course.
10 minutes in Xtol stock at half-minute agitation.
 
I recall back in the 1970s having poor luck pushing TX in the then very popular Accufine developer.
A friend assured me it worked well and he achieved fine results.

"My results are horrible", I said, "Blown highlights, black greytones, poor detail, grain like I'd printed on sand. Do you suppose I could come by and look at yours?"

So I looked at his...he had blown highlights, black "greys", poor detail, sandy grain.

Perhaps it all depends where your "horrible" threshhold lies.

To me, Tri-X is an ISO 250 film. In overcast light I push it to 500.
 
Tri-X + Acufine is one of my favorite combinations...I rate it at 800 or 1000. Pushing further is easy...

Tri-X 45 years ago was different though, right?

Here's an example image:



That said, XTOL works too. I've done some pushes with it but not lately. I usually rate Tri-X at 500 or 640 in XTOL to start with.
 
Use Diafine for high Iso with Tri-x. You will get good results at 1200-1600 Iso. It is a compensating developer, so less likely to blow the highlights or block the shadows. ---john.
 
Canyongazer said:
I recall back in the 1970s having poor luck pushing TX in the then very popular Accufine developer.
A friend assured me it worked well and he achieved fine results.

"My results are horrible", I said, "Blown highlights, black greytones, poor detail, grain like I'd printed on sand. Do you suppose I could come by and look at yours?"

So I looked at his...he had blown highlights, black "greys", poor detail, sandy grain.

Perhaps it all depends where your "horrible" threshhold lies.

To me, Tri-X is an ISO 250 film. In overcast light I push it to 500.
Click to expand...
Highlight: very true.

But no, it is a genuine ISO 400 in most normal developers, rising to ISO 650 or so in speed increasing developers. You may prefer the results at EI 250-320 (as I do) but under ISO conditions it drops to 250 only in fine grain or unsuitable developers.

Cheers,

R.
 
jbrubaker said:
Use Diafine for high Iso with Tri-x. You will get good results at 1200-1600 Iso. It is a compensating developer, so less likely to blow the highlights or block the shadows. ---john.
Click to expand...
Dear John,

For a given value of "good" and depending on subject matter.

I used to push films. Now I prefer good tonality.

Cheers,

R.
 
Nice pic, Coran.
However, judging by the highlight areas on her fingers I'd guess you "overexposed" by a stop or two, in other words, you exposed this around E.I. 400- ish.
Yes, you're right, TX has had tweaking since 1978. However, I stopped teaching darkroom in 2006 and results from a large sampling of student photographers (with Xtol and D-76) were much the same---250 for contrasty light, 500 for flat.

Contacts tell the tale...Expose for minimum time / maximum black where Min/Max is defined as the least amount of enlarger time required to produce the paper's maximum black through unexposed film.
If your frames are too dark, your negs are too thin.
On the other hand, , if you reduce paper exposure so the image looks right and the thinnest part of the negative, e.g., blank film around the sprocket holes, (NO exposure, film base plus chemical fog) are grey then you have not produced a black.
(IOW, if there is no true black where there is NO exposure, you can't ever get black.)

Admittedly, I'm a Tonality Priority guy. :)
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear John,

For a given value of "good" and depending on subject matter.

I used to push films. Now I prefer good tonality.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

True, the tonality isn't as good as some other film/dev combinations, but the op asked about iso 1600 as if he had already exposed the film. I really don't think you can beat Diafine if you expose Tri-x at 1600. ---john.
 
jbrubaker said:
True, the tonality isn't as good as some other film/dev combinations, but the op asked about iso 1600 as if he had already exposed the film. I really don't think you can beat Diafine if you expose Tri-x at 1600. ---john.
Click to expand...
Dear John,

Of course: you are quite right. I just look back with regret at how many rotten exposures I made in the 70s by pushing at all times. For developers... No, I think I'd go for Microphen or DD-X. I used to use two-bath developers but I think they were a lot more use with the emulsions of 40+ years ago than they are today.

Cheers,

R.
 
Here's an example of Neopan 400 rated at 1600 and developed in XTOL 1:1 using the times published in the Kodak XTOL info sheet.

Wilko Johnson at Cornbury Festival in 2011

 
Canyongazer said:
Nice pic, Coran.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and you may be right on that photo (I was shooting w/o a meter) but generally speaking, that's my EI (800-1000) with that combo. That said, yes I do prefer to shoot at a more normal speed. Lately I've been using SPUR HRX and Tri-X shot at 320, which is really nice.

I like to have a multitude of options in my development process. I have two rolls of Tri-X right now I shot at 1600 due to low-light conditions. As we all know, 250-400 ISO just doesn't cut it sometimes...
 
jbrubaker said:
True, the tonality isn't as good as some other film/dev combinations, but the op asked about iso 1600 as if he had already exposed the film. I really don't think you can beat Diafine if you expose Tri-x at 1600. ---john.
Click to expand...

Yes I had exposed a single roll @ 1600 inside a church in Italy--and needed a development solution. I don't like to push but I am always wanting to get shots inside buildings, but I don't have the lenses for it. My f4 "Snapshot Skopar" was overmatched even at ISO 1600. The only shots that came out were the first 7 or 8 that I had noted were at extremely slow shutter speeds, which I wished to avoid.

Thanks for suggestions on developers. Diafine I am not familiar with and would like to try it, but I see the powder runs at $30 for a quart and $44 for a gallon. I am used to paying $5.95 for a gallon of D-76.

Happy New Year!
 
BLKRCAT said:
That sounds like too much agitation. When pushing I will reduce agitation to every min 15 sec to lessen grain and contrast.
Click to expand...

OK, I should have clarified: When I said half-minute agitation, I meant one inversion of the tank every half minute.I don't think that will make a big difference to your agitation regime.

Not that I care much anymore, as I do stand development in Caffenol-C these days. Just have to get the grain down a bit for those high-ISO use cases... still fiddling with my process...
 
I've been shooting a lot of tri x at 1600 in xtol myself and though i love how fine grained it is...i'm wondering...the shadows always seem really thin and i'm wondering if i need to rate it at 800 instead. A friend of mine said he shoots hp5 and neopan 400 because he didn't like the lack of shadow detail in tri-x (shrug) it's still my fave film but wouldn't be opposed to trying some other options. I ordered some ddx from bh the other day so maybe that will be the magic combo for me :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom