pushed Tri X question

[Lumpy]

My first time trying push developing has given me odd results and I'm hoping perhaps I can get some advice;
I use(d) Tri X and Xtol (1:1). I developed for 13:15mins, 4 inversions at the start and then 4 every minute thereafter. When I scanned the negs, the resulting images looked as if they had possibly been over developed. The Highlights and mids looked perhaps 2 stops under and the shadows are very dark (as I expected). The way I would describe the images is, if a properly exposed image was given a 'multiply' layer (perhaps even another @ 50% opacity on top of that one, again). I double checked my exposures with a hand light meter and my Digi SLR, so I'm fairly confident of them.
Any ideas what I may have done wrong? Should I have developed for an iso 800? Was there too much agitation?
Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.

 

[presspass]

What ISO did you expose your film at? Were you trying to push TriX to 1600 or 3200? Both will work with Xtol diluted 1:1 or 1:3. Either Anchell and Troop's Film Developer Cookbook or the Massive Development chart will give you times/temperatures.Kodak gives times/temps for Xtol 1:1 to push TriX and has a pdf of the info at their website. The shadows tend to have little detail if any. The highlights and midtones should have come out. It does sound like you did not agitate enough - usually constant agitation for the first minute followed by either semi-stand - 10 seconds every three to five minutes with an extended time - or 10 seconds every minute with the time given in most charts.

 

[Lumpy]

I exposed it at 1600 with the intention of pushing it to 1600. Am I missing something in any step or is it that simple? ie set iso on camera to 1600, take those meter readings, then develop as if it was 1600? (I got my time from digital truth). The grain looks good, but would I be right in saying that if I agitated more, then the developer would be more 'agressive' and my highs and mids would be even darker?

 

[40oz]

"pushing" IS over-developing. But depending on the scene, it can look just fine or with really blown out highlights and impossibly black shadows everywhere else.

And what a meter says isn't always useful. What's on the negative is the only argument that carries weight. You might need less development than Digital Truth indicates. Or you need to expose differently. But yes, it is as simple as "set camera to 1600 ISO, take shot, develop longer for the reduced exposure." But the scene isn't always that simple.

 

[tomalophicon]

Yes, they are overdeveloped. Contrast is high in my experience. I have to print on grade 00 when I push Tri-x to 1600 AND do afair bit of burning in!

 

[Travis L.]

Don't have much experience with Xtol, but TriX@1600 in Diafine is a nice way to go.

 

[40oz]

One real problem is using an SLR's brain to expose a shot. I was just playing with a friend's DSLR in my living room and without metering I chose 1/20 @f/5.6 and the shot came out the way I wanted it.

I let the camera decide and it properly exposed the lampshades but the rest of the room was was way underexposed. What I was going for was letting the lampshades blow out but getting all the detail in the shadows so the picture was of my living room in the evening, not of my lampshades. If I had been shooting 400 at 1600, it would have been way too dark no matter how long I developed for.

You have to do it yourself. The camera has a very tiny brain and has never heard the words "expose for the shadows." Especially a DSLR.

I don't know what circumstances you were shooting, but I'd suggest next time you're going to push a roll, shoot at least a few frames in daylight so you have a frame of reference. You know what a daylight scene should look like, so you can more easily judge your exposure and development.

And what do the negatives look like? Are they almost clear, or almost totally black? It sounds like you are saying the negatives are underexposed.

 

[Lumpy]

The negatives would be described as leaning towards 'thin' but certainly not overly so. Something I should mention also, which I noticed last night when viewing the negs; they seem to have a very very pale almost sepia tint to them (as opposed to that slight bluish colour that negs are). My chemicals are fresh, so I'm wondering how this was caused and if it is having an effect in results?
I was using my gossen meter and spot metering with the SLR. It was an indoor shot, but lots of bright light coming in from the window.

 

[40oz]

How much do you adjust your scans?

You did under-expose the film, so it's no surprise they look thin.

If the chemicals were fresh, I don't know what to say about the color, but you might try fixing one of them again.

 

[Vincent.G]

If it is overdeveloped then your shadows details should look fine and not too dark as you described, is not it?

Have you got the same problem with scans of negatives that were shot at box speed i.e. neither pushed nor pulled?

 

[Lumpy]

When I develop at box speed (@9 mins) I usually get satisfactory results.

 

[Lumpy]

If it is overdeveloped then your shadows details should look fine and not too dark as you described, is not it?

Have you got the same problem with scans of negatives that were shot at box speed i.e. neither pushed nor pulled?

I'm not at my mac at the moment to look again at images, but I can have another look a little later on...

 

[Lumpy]

Shadow detail isn't too bad, not great though. It seems if I apply one or two 'screen' layers to the image, I begin to get something resembling better exposure (Some highlights need to be burned in then). But I don't want to have to do this every time. I want the negs to be initially closer to the desired outcome, if you catch my meaning?

 

[ChrisN]

May I recommend two articles for you to read, which may help:

Barry Thornton - "Making contacts with curtains" ; and

Tom Halfhill - "How to make a proper proof sheet".

Both these articles will guide you to a way of judging the exposure and development of your negatives.