Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Rodinal stand 1:100 always works for me...
Tri-X @1600, Rodinal 1:100, 90 minutes, no agitation.
Wow, 90 minutes, no agitation? No tapping/rapping in the beginning at all? What temperature?
Also, is it 1:100 or 1+100? For those who don't know, they're different.
imush
Well-known
About 1:100, which, of course, does not matter. What matters is that there is ~4ml of Rodinal in the tank per [120] roll of film.
I invert it a couple of times in the first few seconds and then it just sits at 20C for 90 minutes. Nothing is very precise, I do not control the room temperature exactly, but somehow it doesn't matter with this method.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
Lots of different ways up the same mountain - I wouldn't write off pushing 400 films to 1600.
It's personal taste, but TMZ has massive grain and I never found the shadow detail appreciably better...YMMV, of course.
I pushed some Ilford Pan 400 to EI-1600 recently, using DD-X and the results were phenomenal. Great shadow and midtone detail and easy to print in my wet darkroom.
I've had similar results with other 400 films, with various developers...and some of the examples I've seen here are impressive also.
The point is, as to the OP's query, it's entirely feasible.
It's personal taste, but TMZ has massive grain and I never found the shadow detail appreciably better...YMMV, of course.
I pushed some Ilford Pan 400 to EI-1600 recently, using DD-X and the results were phenomenal. Great shadow and midtone detail and easy to print in my wet darkroom.
I've had similar results with other 400 films, with various developers...and some of the examples I've seen here are impressive also.
The point is, as to the OP's query, it's entirely feasible.
Turtle
Veteran
Colin, it is possible, but only if one understands and accepts that there will not be shadow detail comparable to a higher speed film (like D3200, with a true ISO of about 1000) at 1600 or a 400 speed film at 400. In many respects all one gets are better separated and printable mid tones and highlights because the shadows just aint there....
This might all sound pedantic, but lots of people can't understand why they do not get prints like someone else's when they both push the film to, say, 1600. Its usually that one scene needs shadow detail and the other has none or can stand to lose it. The former will fail miserably as the shadow detail is missing at 1600. The other looks great because it was never there in the scene in the first place, or if it was, it did not matter.
So yes, you can push 400 films to 1600, but at no point does the film perform like a 1600 speed film and you always see the low values drop down the scale or off the bottom end entirely. I think its really important for people new to pushing to understand this otherwise they wont be able to make sense of the results they get and know when its a horribly bad idea to 'push' films in this way. You can rate TriX at whatever fictional speed you wish, but it will never come close to a true 1600 in the shadows. This does not mean the result wont look great...
PS try Tmax 3200 at 1200 or so in Xtol 1+1 at 20 degs C. I printed a 20x16 last week and the grain is miniscule. Absolutely tiny, and the other six rolls look exactly the same. It actually looks finer grained and tighter than unpushed HP5+. I was amazed, having used D3200 for years and won't be shooting any 35mm D3200 again in a hurry unless I want the grain. I find Tmax 3200 at 1000 gives me the same shadow detail as triX at 320 developed to similar contrast, so thats significant.
This might all sound pedantic, but lots of people can't understand why they do not get prints like someone else's when they both push the film to, say, 1600. Its usually that one scene needs shadow detail and the other has none or can stand to lose it. The former will fail miserably as the shadow detail is missing at 1600. The other looks great because it was never there in the scene in the first place, or if it was, it did not matter.
So yes, you can push 400 films to 1600, but at no point does the film perform like a 1600 speed film and you always see the low values drop down the scale or off the bottom end entirely. I think its really important for people new to pushing to understand this otherwise they wont be able to make sense of the results they get and know when its a horribly bad idea to 'push' films in this way. You can rate TriX at whatever fictional speed you wish, but it will never come close to a true 1600 in the shadows. This does not mean the result wont look great...
PS try Tmax 3200 at 1200 or so in Xtol 1+1 at 20 degs C. I printed a 20x16 last week and the grain is miniscule. Absolutely tiny, and the other six rolls look exactly the same. It actually looks finer grained and tighter than unpushed HP5+. I was amazed, having used D3200 for years and won't be shooting any 35mm D3200 again in a hurry unless I want the grain. I find Tmax 3200 at 1000 gives me the same shadow detail as triX at 320 developed to similar contrast, so thats significant.
calebk
Established
I think this pretty much sums it up. Expectations need to be set right or people are never going to stop asking "why does my pushed film look so contrasty?"
It's not that it's wrong or you absolutely can't do it. It's just you really can't expect the same level of detail with pushed film as compared to an inherent speed film.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
Well, we'll agree to disagree. A lot depends on what you're shooting -- a dark street on a dark night is going to be pretty hard to wring shadow detail from in any case. And guess when people tend to push their film? When it's dark.
The examples I referenced above (Pan400 @1600) were both at night in an urban setting, as well as an overcast day...both had shadow detail and did not require any special handling re: contrast.
In a broad sense, you're right -- you lose shadow detail, to varying degrees, when pushing film. My only point is it can be so minor as to be negligible.
I'd quibble about TMZ grain *ever* coming close to HP5 @400, but I'm not a quibbler and I'm not privy to your results, either. If so, then my photo hat's off to you!
The examples I referenced above (Pan400 @1600) were both at night in an urban setting, as well as an overcast day...both had shadow detail and did not require any special handling re: contrast.
In a broad sense, you're right -- you lose shadow detail, to varying degrees, when pushing film. My only point is it can be so minor as to be negligible.
I'd quibble about TMZ grain *ever* coming close to HP5 @400, but I'm not a quibbler and I'm not privy to your results, either. If so, then my photo hat's off to you!
John Robertson
Well-known
For Astro photography I ued to use D76 1 + 1 for about 15 - 17 minutes gave highish contrast and reasonably smooth grain.
Tim Gray
Well-known
Colin - in my experience scanning really emphasizes TMZ's grain. I think it looks better wet printed. Though scanning at 4000 dpi helps some. As far as shadow detail, depending on your idea of 'minor' you are probably right. It's only 1-1.5 stops extra.
However, sometimes that extra stop and a bit can really come in handy.
However, sometimes that extra stop and a bit can really come in handy.
paapoopa
Established
i dont see alot of people using tmax developer, i kind of like the result when using it to push trix to 1600..
heres one
tmax dev 1+4
8.45mins 22C
heres one
tmax dev 1+4
8.45mins 22C
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Pushing Tri-X to 1600 is a limit to me, no matter the used developer. I prefer to use 1250. The difference in shutter speed on real life is nothing, but the difference on paper is evident.
This, if the case is incident metering... If camera meters are used, some of them when set to 1600 ask for the same light an incident reading can ask for 800, so depending on the used camera, pushing Tri-X to 1600 can really mean pushing it to 800, and that's easy and looks fine for most scenes...
And if instead of wet printing you scan and adjust levels, pushing Tri-X to 3200 can be done. And it doesn't require as precise metering as for wet printing from high contrast negatives where a small amount of under/overexposure on such a narrow tonal range means losing all shadow/highlight detail easily.
So, to the OP's advice asking... If you wet print, ISO1250 and no too long development are safer than 1600 to protect tonal range's extremes, and for 1600 I'd recommend another film as a MUCH better option at that speed: TMZ... But if you scan, everything is a lot easier, so just shoot!
Cheers,
Juan
This, if the case is incident metering... If camera meters are used, some of them when set to 1600 ask for the same light an incident reading can ask for 800, so depending on the used camera, pushing Tri-X to 1600 can really mean pushing it to 800, and that's easy and looks fine for most scenes...
And if instead of wet printing you scan and adjust levels, pushing Tri-X to 3200 can be done. And it doesn't require as precise metering as for wet printing from high contrast negatives where a small amount of under/overexposure on such a narrow tonal range means losing all shadow/highlight detail easily.
So, to the OP's advice asking... If you wet print, ISO1250 and no too long development are safer than 1600 to protect tonal range's extremes, and for 1600 I'd recommend another film as a MUCH better option at that speed: TMZ... But if you scan, everything is a lot easier, so just shoot!
Cheers,
Juan
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
I am curious to try TMZ, now...however, I have some Neopan 1600 in the fridge. I think along with some Neopan 400 pushed to 1600, I have the makings of a nice experiment!
Thanks for the suggestion of TMZ - haven't tried XTol before, but a first time for everything.
Thanks for the suggestion of TMZ - haven't tried XTol before, but a first time for everything.
gho
Well-known
Diafine:
Xtol 1+1; 13.5 min
Rodinal 1+50, 68F, 20min
Rodinal 1+100 2h stand-development
The stand development technique is a bit tricky, as I often got uneven development in brighter light.
Diafine is quite ok in my opinion, as is Xtol, but for now I like Rodinal 1+50 for 20 min. All the developers I tried seem to work somehow.
Xtol 1+1; 13.5 min
Rodinal 1+50, 68F, 20min
Rodinal 1+100 2h stand-development
The stand development technique is a bit tricky, as I often got uneven development in brighter light.
Diafine is quite ok in my opinion, as is Xtol, but for now I like Rodinal 1+50 for 20 min. All the developers I tried seem to work somehow.
Last edited:
silent1
Well-known
Tri-X in HC-110(B) for 15 min 15 sec. Agitations initially 30s, and every two minutes thereafter for 10s each cycle. I've been doing this for about two months now with consistently good results:
I love these tones! I'll try your recipe next time I decide to push TriX to 1600. Thanks for sharing.
David_Manning
Well-known
Since I originally started the thread, I'll say I don't mind wandering a bit off-topic. I like the ideas and interaction.
As far as the reasoning for my whole query, I ended up just shooting Tri-X at box speed 400 ISO. When it got too dark for that, I started indulging in hurricanes (the local drink) and forgot about photography
But what I DID do, however, is develop my Tri-X in TMax developer instead of my usual HC-110 dil B. I like the TMax better, because the results are repeatable (the timing is exact!). The HC-110 times are all over the chart, and I have been getting over-developed negs which are dense and grainy.
Here are a couple of those New Orleans Tri-X shots (at 400ISO) developed in TMax developer...and I hope you don't mind if I stray slightly OT myself on my own thread!
As far as the reasoning for my whole query, I ended up just shooting Tri-X at box speed 400 ISO. When it got too dark for that, I started indulging in hurricanes (the local drink) and forgot about photography
But what I DID do, however, is develop my Tri-X in TMax developer instead of my usual HC-110 dil B. I like the TMax better, because the results are repeatable (the timing is exact!). The HC-110 times are all over the chart, and I have been getting over-developed negs which are dense and grainy.
Here are a couple of those New Orleans Tri-X shots (at 400ISO) developed in TMax developer...and I hope you don't mind if I stray slightly OT myself on my own thread!
braver
Well-known
As far as the reasoning for my whole query, I ended up just shooting Tri-X at box speed 400 ISO. When it got too dark for that, I started indulging in hurricanes (the local drink) and forgot about photography
Hey, it's all about the experience anyway.
I'd just like to chime in and put in a word for trix pushed to 1600. As much as I like neopan 1600, with trix I can carry one type of film and tackle any situation. I don't have to prepare for perhaps deciding to shoot five rolls in a museum, I'll just pack ten rolls of trix for a day and be done with it. Also, trix is cheaper. So, you lose a bit of shadow detail, but the situations I tend to shoot iso 1600 at would need several stops extra to cover it properly. It's never a problem though, not in the scanner, not in the darkroom. Although, I do have to say I love my black
john_s
Well-known
I know it's obvious but when people debate the merits of pushing to 1250 instead of 1600 (for example) it's in the realm where metering technique is going to make more difference than 1/3 of a stop in rated film speed. In most low light situations the light is contrasty making technique even more critical. Added to that, some meters such as SLR matrix metering make some assumptions about dealing with contrast on behalf of the photographer without asking.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
David - my compliments on the images. Some really good moments, there.
David_Manning
Well-known
Thanks Colin.
silent1
Well-known
So I tried calebk's recipe: Tri-X in HC-110(B) for 15 min 15 sec. Agitations initially 30s, and every two minutes thereafter for 10s each cycle and that's what came out:
(Minolta CLE, Nokton 40mm f1.4)
Not sure this is what calebk is getting, but can't really say I'm disappointed with the results. Grain is very pronounced, so is contrast, but LR can handle it easily. I wonder what will happen when I'm going to print those hehe
abumac
Well-known
Tri-X, 120, @3200 in T-Max-Dev, 13-14 min. moving 1. minute, then every minute 3x.
Last edited: