max0ski
Newbie
About to try out the above combo and wondering if anyone has any experience with this. I heard some people say I can just develop as if it was shot at 400 but massive dev says 8.5 minutes. Any ideas? My goals are to regularly push tri x 400 one stop (my camera doesn't support anything higher than 800 asa) and if there is another push processing develop that is good for that id love to know, thanks 
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Kodak's tech data sheet for Tri-X says the film has enough exposure lattitude to underexpose it one stop (shooting at EI-800) without increasing developing time. So, they only give developing times for a two-stop push, to EI-1600.
I have always been skeptical of that claim, and would probably give a developing time partway between Kodak's recommended normal time and their two-stop push time. This is my feeling based on experiences with other films, I have not tried it with Tri-X and if I were you I would shoot a test roll to be sure before doing something important.
Kodak's normal developing time is 6 minutes at 68 degrees (20C) in Tmax Developer diluted 1+4.
Their two-stop push time is 8.75 minutes. Same dilution and temperature.
I would try 7.5 minutes at 68 degrees, in the 1+4 dilution, as a starting point.
Tmax Developer is the best pushing developer made today, in my opinion. I have used it for that purpose with great success with Tmax 400, the now-discontinued Tmax p3200, and Ilford's Delta 3200.
I have always been skeptical of that claim, and would probably give a developing time partway between Kodak's recommended normal time and their two-stop push time. This is my feeling based on experiences with other films, I have not tried it with Tri-X and if I were you I would shoot a test roll to be sure before doing something important.
Kodak's normal developing time is 6 minutes at 68 degrees (20C) in Tmax Developer diluted 1+4.
Their two-stop push time is 8.75 minutes. Same dilution and temperature.
I would try 7.5 minutes at 68 degrees, in the 1+4 dilution, as a starting point.
Tmax Developer is the best pushing developer made today, in my opinion. I have used it for that purpose with great success with Tmax 400, the now-discontinued Tmax p3200, and Ilford's Delta 3200.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
If you want to read Kodak's tech publication on Tri-X, here's a link:
Kodak Publication F4017: Tri-X
Kodak Publication F4017: Tri-X
gavinlg
Veteran
100% spot on. I would split the developing time between recommended between ei400 and 1600. Agitate gently. Tri-x is best (imo) at 800 - deeper blacks and crunchy mids.
Freakscene
Obscure member
What Chris said, with an added note that the base speed of Tri-X in TMax 1+4 is between 500 and 640, so it's not really much of a push and you can get really good speed without negs that have the most significant disadvantages of pushing. TMax RS provided slightly higher speed in my tests, but not enough to be functionally different.
Marty
Marty
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Marty,
If you're getting that kind of speed from Tri-X in Tmax Developer, or any other developer, you're either overdeveloping or your meter needs calibrated. I've never gotten a real speed higher than 320 from Tri-X 400 in ANY developer.
The only 400 speed film that I have gotten a speed higher than 400 from was Ilford Delta 400 in Tmax Developer. Got a speed of 500 from it.
Freakscene
Obscure member
All calibrated to iso standards Chris, target, meter, densitometer and standard statistics. The iso standard uses 12% reflection. I did use rotary agitation, which can influence things somewhat. CI was 0.59, slightly higher than I like, but prints well at grade 2 (I prefer lower contrast overall) but toe speed was right on.
How are you measuring film speed? I also found that HP5+ in DD-X had a similar speed.
Have you also notived that Kodak's data sheets used to have reference contrast values for pushing, but they don't anymore? My old Xtol and TMax data sheets have these values, but the current ones do not.
Marty
max0ski
Newbie
Thanks @chriscrawfordphoto I am going to try 7.5 minutes at 20 degrees c! Ill let you know how they turn out.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Well, there is such a thing as a film exhibiting a bona fide speed increase--which to me means an increase in shadow speed--in certain developers. My "bible" in such matters has been Anchell and Troop's "The film developing cookbook" which lists TMax developer along with XTOL and others in this category. They reckon a 60% speed increase to be realistic.
I agree with Chris that it is just wrong to think that if we underexpose one stop, we will still get as much shadow detail as we can have at the box speed. After all, the toe of the curve is where it is. Cut the exposure below that, and you get blank film. But if T-Max or XTOL adds 2/3 stop, then we should expect to recover part of the density that was lost--say, 2/3 stop, or thereabouts.
So it stands to reason that the combination of a speed increase developer plus a modest increase in development of another minute or minute and a half should restore the same density as we get at box speed--or nearly so.
Agree or disagree?
I agree with Chris that it is just wrong to think that if we underexpose one stop, we will still get as much shadow detail as we can have at the box speed. After all, the toe of the curve is where it is. Cut the exposure below that, and you get blank film. But if T-Max or XTOL adds 2/3 stop, then we should expect to recover part of the density that was lost--say, 2/3 stop, or thereabouts.
So it stands to reason that the combination of a speed increase developer plus a modest increase in development of another minute or minute and a half should restore the same density as we get at box speed--or nearly so.
Agree or disagree?
Freakscene
Obscure member
Agree? It all depends on whether you are referring to results or speed (i.e. statistics). The main problem is that a many film users, including numerous highly competent photographers, don't differentiate good or acceptable results from real speed. I like FB+fog+0.2 as my toe speed, because I prefer higher shadow contrast (not detail, contrast) but relatively low contrast negs, but almost all photographers are happy with less toe speed and more contrast than that. It is usually forgotten that the historical basis of all standards is aesthetic - people were shown photos, decided which they preferred, then someone described those negs, and built those characteristics into exposure and devlopment standards.
So what you write, of course, makes sense, and you can measure both the decrease in toe speed and the increase in contrast with a change in exposure, but how much that means or anyone notices is variable. It's obviously sufficiently minimal that Kodak, who understands the material better than anyone, thinks that you can get away with no change in exposure without much noticeable change in results.
Tri-X Ei1600, TMax 1+4
Tri-X EI800, TMax 1+4
Marty
Edit/addition: and to the original poster, try it and see what you think. Chris' suggestion about a starting time is spot on, and if you plan to make this a regular process, adjust as necessary, including trying Xtol or DD-X if you don't like TMax.
So what you write, of course, makes sense, and you can measure both the decrease in toe speed and the increase in contrast with a change in exposure, but how much that means or anyone notices is variable. It's obviously sufficiently minimal that Kodak, who understands the material better than anyone, thinks that you can get away with no change in exposure without much noticeable change in results.
Tri-X Ei1600, TMax 1+4
Tri-X EI800, TMax 1+4
Marty
Edit/addition: and to the original poster, try it and see what you think. Chris' suggestion about a starting time is spot on, and if you plan to make this a regular process, adjust as necessary, including trying Xtol or DD-X if you don't like TMax.
Last edited:
joeswe
Well-known
Max,
consider yourself lucky, some very good and well founded contributions from others in this thread
As you seem to be a beginner, I will also try to answer your question from a practical perspective:
Pushing film is always compromise or trade-off, where you gain something and loose something. I think Kodak's recommendations to not change development when underexposing Tri-X for up to one stop simply reflect the idea that for the average photographer photographing an average subject the drawbacks of extended development (more grain, harsher tonality, risk of blowing highlights) would probably outweigh the benefits of extended development (pushing up the midtones on the density scale which partially compensates for the underexposure caused by setting the exposure meter one stop higher).
But, like Freakscene rightly points out, this is most and importantly an individual and aesthetic decision and you should not let Kodak make that decision for you. I would rather suggest that you shoot a roll at EI800 and develop normally and then shoot a second roll (same day and in the same light) at EI800 and extend development and then judge which results you prefer.
Then shoot a couple of rolls with the preferred combination. Do NOT constantly change things like exposure or development or developer at the beginning UNTIL you have used this combo for a dozen rolls or so in different lighting situations with different subjects and thus have gained a solid feeling what kind of results you can expect from it. If after a couple of rolls you notice that you are unhappy with the tonality or the contrast/detail in the highlights/shadows you can further adjust from there, step by step.
consider yourself lucky, some very good and well founded contributions from others in this thread
As you seem to be a beginner, I will also try to answer your question from a practical perspective:
Pushing film is always compromise or trade-off, where you gain something and loose something. I think Kodak's recommendations to not change development when underexposing Tri-X for up to one stop simply reflect the idea that for the average photographer photographing an average subject the drawbacks of extended development (more grain, harsher tonality, risk of blowing highlights) would probably outweigh the benefits of extended development (pushing up the midtones on the density scale which partially compensates for the underexposure caused by setting the exposure meter one stop higher).
But, like Freakscene rightly points out, this is most and importantly an individual and aesthetic decision and you should not let Kodak make that decision for you. I would rather suggest that you shoot a roll at EI800 and develop normally and then shoot a second roll (same day and in the same light) at EI800 and extend development and then judge which results you prefer.
Then shoot a couple of rolls with the preferred combination. Do NOT constantly change things like exposure or development or developer at the beginning UNTIL you have used this combo for a dozen rolls or so in different lighting situations with different subjects and thus have gained a solid feeling what kind of results you can expect from it. If after a couple of rolls you notice that you are unhappy with the tonality or the contrast/detail in the highlights/shadows you can further adjust from there, step by step.