First Impressions: Tri-X @ 3200 in Rodinal

dcsang

dcsang

Canadian & Not A Dentist
Local time
6:46 PM
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
4,548
Ok.. I'm guessing at times here because the chart only goes to 32 minutes but seeing as how, according to Digital Truth, the dev time for Tri-X in Rodinal @ 3200 is 33 minutes @ 20C I guesstimated that it would be about 27.5 minutes @ 22 C.

I've noted that if it's an "evenly lit" scene, the results are quite nice. If it's not evenly lit, then I'm basically SOL when it comes to the shot - this, of course, is a problem with me and not metering correctly and likely has nothing to do with the film itself.

All the same, it does turn out with nice "normal" grain (imho) and has a different "feel" than Tmax 3200 does.

The bus image below was shot with the Voigtlander 21mm @ f16 (if memory serves correctly) and around 1/60 second (I spot metered the "hound" as the R3A meter was coming up at 1/250). I was playing "Zone-boy" and figured it was in Zone VII - don't pick me apart on this one since I obviously have a long way to go with respect to zone work :D

I'd like to try the film at 6400 and then, perhaps, at 12800 but for now I'm pretty pleased with most of the results.

Cheers
Dave
 
Your results look very nice. One thing, though - using EI 3200 in order to get to 1/60 at f16 vs. 1/15 at f 1.4 is pretty different, in terms of quality of light. The grain and shadow detail in your example really does look great, but it really gets interesting when you put it in some seriously difficult and low light.

allan
 
Very nice indeed. Absolutely better than when rated @ 1000 on Diafine. OK, I'm definitively encouraged to do this now; I've seen enough examples to push Tri-X to 3200. I don't like pushing film at all. My only exception was with Diafine. Now it'll be Tri-X @ 3200 in Rodinal...

I wonder just how luscious it would look with the 50 Summicron (collapsible or tabbed)...mmmmmm, acutaliscious...
 
gabrielma said:
I wonder just how luscious it would look with the 50 Summicron (collapsible or tabbed)...mmmmmm, acutaliscious...
Click to expand...


As and you shall receive :)

Here's a full size unsharpened copy of the "hat" photo attached below.

This was at f8 or f11 (I'm leaning to f8 though) on the collapsible cron.


Kaiyen, I do agree with you that the differences in low/available light would be interesting and really test what the film will look like - I will look to get some of that soon I hope. The closest I could get was the second attached photo which was shot at f4.5 on the 15mm @ about 1/15.

Cheers
Dave
 
Nice :) I've got five or six rolls of concert shots (tri-X at 3200) that I'm going to develop in Rodinal, ill try and put a few up here too :)
 
I love pushing Tri-X in Rodinal. I think that I prefer the look of images shot at 1600 than at 400; there's just something luminous and crisp about them. I recently shot a roll at 3200 (not the first time) and here are some samples.
Bessa R3A, Nokton 40/1.4 (wide-open or nearly so), souped for 32 mins in Rodinal 1:50 with the 5 minutes/5 inversions agitation cycle.
 
sockeyed said:
I love pushing Tri-X in Rodinal. I think that I prefer the look of images shot at 1600 than at 400; there's just something luminous and crisp about them. I recently shot a roll at 3200 (not the first time) and here are some samples.
Bessa R3A, Nokton 40/1.4 (wide-open or nearly so), souped for 32 mins in Rodinal 1:50 with the 5 minutes/5 inversions agitation cycle.
Click to expand...

It was your info (along with Digital Truth ) that I used as a guide. I'm pretty happy with it at 3200 and the grain is more than acceptable when it's "agitated" (more like "gently swished") with the 5 min/5 inversions method. I'd like to bump up one more stop and then see what it's like shooting with the Cron wide open in low light.

OT but did you get the lens?

Cheers
Dave
 
Dave: Looks really nice, especially the grain structure. It's hard to tell on a monitor (and I'm viewing on a laptop LCD), but it seems like maybe the highlights are just slightly blocked. Have you made a print to see what the highlight separation is like? I'm not trying to dampen your enthusiasm :D cause the shot really does look nice, especially for 3200. If you do find the highlights could stand more separation, maybe a higher dilution would help out.

Trius
 
Trius said:
Dave: Looks really nice, especially the grain structure. It's hard to tell on a monitor (and I'm viewing on a laptop LCD), but it seems like maybe the highlights are just slightly blocked. Have you made a print to see what the highlight separation is like? I'm not trying to dampen your enthusiasm :D cause the shot really does look nice, especially for 3200. If you do find the highlights could stand more separation, maybe a higher dilution would help out.

Trius
Click to expand...

I'd like to get one of the shots in to print at some point - hopefully sooner rather than later since I'd like to use this method/film for an upcoming wedding I have to shoot - Sad thing is, it will be printed by a minilab digitally rather than "properly" on quality paper etc. But at least I should be able to have some idea.

Cheers
Dave
 
Problem is that in that kind of light you don't need 3200 speed film. Here's a shot I took in a coal mine with tmax3200 rated at 3200 dev'd in HC110.
 
Nick R. said:
Problem is that in that kind of light you don't need 3200 speed film. Here's a shot I took in a coal mine with tmax3200 rated at 3200 dev'd in HC110.
Click to expand...

Sadly, in a subdued lit church, you do.

Cheers
Dave
 
Dave,
That's what I mean. In a dimly lit church, like a coal mine, you need 3200. The bus shot isn't a fair test, IMO.

------------------

Thanks, Allan.
I took that shot with my Hexar AF. Would have been hard to focus an RF in that light.
 
Nick R. said:
Dave,
That's what I mean. In a dimly lit church, like a coal mine, you need 3200. The bus shot isn't a fair test, IMO.

------------------

Thanks, Allan.
I took that shot with my Hexar AF. Would have been hard to focus an RF in that light.
Click to expand...

Yep... I concur.. take a look at the other two shots I posted :)

Cheers
Dave
 
The lockerway shot looks great for tri-x 3200. But I guess the only way to really know in cases like these is to use a spot meter and compare zones after processing. For example, Let's say I meter a scene at 3200 speed, take my shot, then process and print my photo. Let's say I get a very usable print. I may say that I succsessfully used the film at 3200 speed. But suppose in reality, what I metered to be zone V is Zone VII on the negative, yet I make up for this in printing a relatively flat scene. That means that I really shot at 800 speed which would be only a 1 stop push for Tri-X.
I'm not trying to knock your work or photos. I just think rating film speed is tougher than it seems, at least for me. I know that when I think about it too much my head hurts :)
 
Nick R. said:
<snip>
I'm not trying to knock your work or photos. I just think rating film speed is tougher than it seems, at least for me. I know that when I think about it too much my head hurts :)</snip>
Click to expand...


Totally agree :)

I know that if I get my spot metering correct; I'm usually getting very good negs etc. but my problem with Zone work is 1) I don't do the whole development part of it - and really, I should be ensuring that the development is n or n+1 etc shouldn't I? and 2) I don't have a densitometer for the film density. So I always look at my Zone work as being a "poor man's" zone :D (really though, how poor can I be.. I've got cameras and film right???) :D

Cheers
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom