Push it; push it real good.

i tried pushing to 1600 and developing for 3200 using merciful's agitation cycle.

the results were better than my other attempts at pushing. but there is still very little shadow details, the negatives were pretty thin.

was that the same for you guys too?
 
My negs are never thin, unless I've really decided to let everything go in the darks for some reason. Underexposed or underdeveloped, I'd say.
 
yes it could be the case.

i shot it with a minox, with i have no control over the exposure except for the +2 compensation.

but generally, do you lose details in shadows when you push the film (tx400) ?
 
suedgar said:
but generally, do you lose details in shadows when you push the film (tx400) ?
Click to expand...
Whether or not you lose shadow detail pushing film depends on the contrast of the scene. If you are shooting a low contrast scene then you might not lose much shadow detail at all. If the scene is high contrast and your exposure is averaged then you might lose shadow detail - even shooting at the film's nominal ISO. There really isn't a simple answer to your question.

If you are interested in refining your exposure and development skills I would suggest you pick up a book on the "Zone System".
 
Last edited:
suedgar said:
but generally, do you lose details in shadows when you push the film (tx400) ?
Click to expand...

Zeos' answer is correct, but I'll also add that pushing film decreases the tonal range that the film will capture, and if one is exposing to maintain details in the highlights, that'll be noticed in a loss of detail in the shadows.
 
Bringing this back up for reference later on after I get my Rodinal. Thinking of exposing some Tri-X at 12,800 myself...shooting in a dark theater or outside. Out of curiosity, how did you meter this? What shutter speeds/apertures did you use?
 
I metered with my Sekonic. I don't use the big push as a method to get shots in a very dark environment; I use it to get a shutter speed that easy to hand-hold for the lens I'm using, or for the look of it; or in the case of my toy cameras, to get a usable exposure inside.

If the ambient light seemed unlikely to be readable by my meter, I'd fall back on some data from the Ultimate Exposure Computer.

For the original shot posted here, the exposure was 1/250 @ f3.5.
 
merciful said:
Nothing special for me: 1+50, 51 minutes, five inversions per five minutes.
Click to expand...

Merciful,

I subscribed to this forum JUST to be able to inquire about your posts in this thread. After reading your posts & seeing the attached photograph I went out and did some tests of my own. Here's the data:

Film: Tri-X 320 (TXP) in 120 Format

Exposure: Each of 3 rolls were exposed identically so they could each be cut into two and developed separately. EI's were 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 and 12,800 followed by a blank frame, and a repeat of the first 5 frames.

Subject: Portrait in flat, outdoor lighting

Dev: Rodinal 1:50 (bottle was about half a year old), processed in a manual tank using 500ml of solution. Agitation was 30 sec / first min, and then 5 inversions (or 10 seconds) at every additional 5 min until completed. This was followed by 30 sec stop bath, 5 min iLford Fix, 2 min Hypo and 5 minute wash under tap water.

First Run - 30 minutes

Second Run - 45 minutes


RESULTS:

The negs from both batches were very similar with very very minor density differences. Frames at EI 800 and 1600 certainly look "printable", although low-contrast. Frame rated EI 6400 is thin as hell, barely contains real detail, though subject can still be clearly made out.

** Frame rated at EI 12,400 is so thin I can barely make out parts of the subject! Unless I'm giving the frame far less credit then it deserves, I can't imagine how you were able to obtain any print whatsoever, much less that beautiful portrait from a roll of film that was developed to the said specifications.

Any help insight would be appreciated.

BTW: For sheer curiosity I will be developing another roll from this batch, also in two halves, in Jobo, at agitation setting "P", using Rodinal 1:25 (270ml solution). I'm curious if the results will yeild anything interesting and would be happy to post these if anyone would like.


Best,
Daniel
 
Addendum To The Above Post

Addendum To The Above Post

It's almost 7:30am and I've spent the last several hours making proof prints from the negatives obtained in the aforementioned tests. Below are the results:


Tri-x (TXP) 320 - Rodinal 1:50 @ 68 F - 30 Min (Agit: 30s/1st Min, 10s/e5min)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frame EI 12,800: Completely unprintable, subject can be vaguely made out. Scene lacks any semblance of contrast.

Frame EI 6400: Completely unprintable, similar to above, only slightly more contrasty.

Frame EI 3200: Unprintable to any acceptable standard, however scene does contain 'some' contrast and subject clear and visible.

Frame EI 1600: Printable and looks "decent", but still a far cry from anything that can be perceived as "intentional".

Frame EI 800: Acceptably printable, but no breath taking tones or other characteristics.


Tri-x (TXP) 320 - Rodinal 1:50 @ 68 F - 45 Min (Agit: 30s/1st Min, 10s/e5min)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frame EI 12,800: Completely unprintable, subject can be vaguely made out. Scene lacks any semblance of contrast.

Frame EI 6400: Completely unprintable, similar to above, only slightly more contrasty.

Frame EI 3200: Unprintable to any acceptable standard, however scene does contain 'some' contrast and subject clear and visible.

Frame EI 1600: Printable - contrast range and mid/highlight tonality is still lacking to make a truly "fine print".

Frame EI 800: Excellent Print Obtained. Absolutely stunning skin tones, Rodinal's reknown "accutance" shines through. The portrait is truly three-dimensional. This combination truly merits standardizing.


Tri-x (TXP) 320 - Rodinal 1:25 @ 68 F - 30 Min (JOBO-F, Continuous Agitation)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frame EI 12,800: Completely unprintable, subject can be vaguely made out. Scene lacks any semblance of contrast.

Frame EI 6400: Completely unprintable, similar to above, only slightly more contrasty.

Frame EI 3200: Unprintable to any acceptable standard, however scene does contain 'some' contrast and subject clear and visible.

Frame EI 1600: Acceptably printable, good tones and shadow detail.

Frame EI 800: Excellent tone & detail, most definitely acceptable.


*** In comparison to the rolls that were developed manually the roll processed in the Jobo appeared to be "muddier", lacking general sharpness and punch. I attribute this to the Rodinal's legendary "edge development" that simply isn't present with continuous agitation.


!! - All prints were made on Agfa Variable Contrast Fiber Paper on a Saunders LPL VCCE 4550 enlarger, and developed in Kodak Dektol 1:1. Where a given negative was deemed "unprintable", it should be considered that various filtration settings and compensation methods (preflashing, chromium intensification, etc) were attempted.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:

My tests cannot substantiate or corroborate the results posted by Merciful in this thread. Without any disrespect to the author, Tri-x 320, though indeed versatile, simply cannot be pushed 5 stops using the methods described in this thread.

Despite the fact that the times used in my tests fell slightly short of those posted by Merciful, the discrepancies are simply too wide to be bridged by any marginal extending of development time.

Furthermore, I conducted one additional test for the sake of curiosity alone - negatives resulting from this test were not printed as they did not differ significantly from those obtained in earlier tests (in the lacking areas). The test consisted of processing an additional roll (from the original batch) in-Jobo, with continuous agitation, using Rodinal 1:25 for 30 mins at 68 F. No significant density buildup was observed in frames exposed above those already deemed "printable" in earlier test results.
 
Very interestng technical work: you're to be commended for taking a scientific approach to something that I only worked out through trial-and-error.

Some comments:

I use TX 400, and am unsure what differences there are betwen the two emulsions. There are emulsions, of course, that take to a big push far less than others: see this thread for an example of that happens to Efke R25 under similar conditions. I use 70F as a standard temperature for all my processing, too, which will certainly lead to some difference in results.

Carry on with the testing!
 
merciful said:
Very interestng technical work: you're to be commended for taking a scientific approach to something that I only worked out through trial-and-error.

Some comments:

I use TX 400, and am unsure what differences there are betwen the two emulsions. There are emulsions, of course, that take to a big push far less than others: see this thread for an example of that happens to Efke R25 under similar conditions. I use 70F as a standard temperature for all my processing, too, which will certainly lead to some difference in results.

Carry on with the testing!
Click to expand...

Merciful,

I may owe you an applogy. Consider that after 14 hours of straight testing batches of film and not getting anything even remotely resembling a printable negative, I was more then a bit frustrated. Now that I re-read my earlier post, I realize the tone may have been set by that frustration :)

In further testing conducted since that fateful day, I've confirmed that Tri-X 320 (TXP) yeilds beatiful negatives when pushed to ISO 800 and developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 56-58 minutes @ 68 F, but simply can't be pushed any further with this combo.

I am told that Tri-X 400 (TX) indeed offers far greater push-potential. I will be testing this thoroughly in coming weeks.

As for the "scientific approach" - Hah! I'm the most disorganized, clutzy, clumsy, reckless person you ever met! I have no choice but to proceed methodically to compensate for my own (natural) lack of order.

I hope to scan/post results from future tests as these become available.

Cheers
Daniel
 
iSerious said:
I may owe you an applogy.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I could tell you'd hit the frustration point, but I certainly wasn't about to take it personally. I look forward to further results, certainly.
 
shutterflower said:
"Push it" by Static X - my darkroom soundtrack
Click to expand...

Static-X isn't bad to work to, I suppose.

But on the topic of "Push It"...

Garbage, anyone?



Also, the only push work I've done has been 120 HP5+, and I realize now that my flatbed transparency adapter doesn't fit 120. I'm not entirely sure what the other half of it fits, actually. I think it may be for slides, in individual holders. Either way, I'm boned for scanning the results. (ISO 400 pushed to 1600, I believe.)
 
If you're pushing, it's gotta be Mayfield!

Can't wait to try out some of these methods this summer when I get back into the darkroom. Merciful, your frame at 12,800 look better than my Tri-X shots at 3200 in D-76!
 
Thanks, Matt. Mayfield is good: D-76 is bad. Get some of the real thing...
 
Yes, I think I'm starting to agree. My only darkroom experience is a via a photography course I took at the local community college, and since it was a beginner's class, the instructor only allowed us to develop in D76. This summer I'm taking a more advanced class, and I also know more about the subject personally, so I'm pretty confident I will be able to get some good developer in my reels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom