Pushing TX to 1600

Tri-X @1600 looks awesome with DDX. I think I saw someone mention that up there somewhere as well. XTOL is great as well but comes with it's own set of challenges.
 
semi-ambivalent said:
Because, in my case, I can use anything I want to develop film and I like the look I get. There has always been a sort of almost petty animosity directed towards Rodinal, possibly because of the stand development crowd, but I've seen some pretty amazing images from that method and those folks are happy with it. It's not for me but they like it. For example, Kodak themselves recommends no change in development for Tri-X when exposed at EI 800 rather than EI 400. In light of that does 2/3 of a stop actually mean anything at all outside of your own personal workflow?

With over 150 years of history do you really think Photography has or should have just a few ways of doing things? That's a little rigid, don't you think?

Thanks!
s-a
Click to expand...

Animosity? I don't think I was the one directing any animosity. In fact I have nothing against Rodinal; I admire it for its gritty sharpness and gorgeous midrange tones, and have always kept some on hand. I don't think anything you said has anything to do with my question. I think you are throwing in the kitchen sink, without addressing anything I said. Kodak's recommendation for Tri-X in one of their own developers has nothing to do with Rodinal. And why bring 150 years of history into it?

I'm being rigid? No, I'm saying I simply don't see why one would use Rodinal for pushing, since it reduces the effective speed, rather than enhancing it, and there are better develops for the purpose. Apparently I'll have to wait for someone else to explain it.

My question was about Rodinal, it was not a personal attack on you. I believe you took it that way, and responded defensively.
 
Rob-F said:
I don't know why Rodinal is used as a push developer. It's a speed losing developer, meaning you lose shadow speed rather than gaining it. Why not use a genuine speed increase developer like Microphen or DD-X, in order to pick up an extra 2/3 stop of shadow speed before cutting the exposure?
Click to expand...

I've only pushed in rodinal with a stand method. I'm sure you are aware how it works as its not a huge secret.

I would never push with rodinal at conventional dilutions. Shadow detail would be the least of my worries, the golf ball sized grain would be my first concern.
 
​I am a noobie at this but here are my two cents for what they're worth: Two cents.
I think that when you push film you ask of the film to do something that is not in its nature.
In a galaxy far far away I was a musician, so the best way for me to explan this, is that pushing film is similar to what playing loud is about.
Pushing film is like distorting your signal. You get the results that you want (loud music or in our case, an exposure that with some tweaking, can amount to a really nice image) but not without sacrifice. No matter what you do with pushing film, you will have to make sacrifices.
I have shot/pushed Tri-X, Double-X, Fomapan 400 to 1600 (daylight and at night/available light) and I have, and still am, enjoying the results I get with Rodinal. It speaks to me. I have shot Delta 3200 @1600 and I am not a fan.

Again, that's me and my two cents.
 
Tri x and Diafine will give 1200 shadow detail. Follow instructions.

Other stuff may give you a boost to 600 shadow detail.

Anything else is just added contrast with empty shadows
 
Rob-F said:
Animosity? I don't think I was the one directing any animosity. In fact I have nothing against Rodinal; I admire it for its gritty sharpness and gorgeous midrange tones, and have always kept some on hand. I don't think anything you said has anything to do with my question. I think you are throwing in the kitchen sink, without addressing anything I said. Kodak's recommendation for Tri-X in one of their own developers has nothing to do with Rodinal. And why bring 150 years of history into it?

I'm being rigid? No, I'm saying I simply don't see why one would use Rodinal for pushing, since it reduces the effective speed, rather than enhancing it, and there are better develops for the purpose. Apparently I'll have to wait for someone else to explain it.

My question was about Rodinal, it was not a personal attack on you. I believe you took it that way, and responded defensively.
Click to expand...

I did not take it as a personal attack. OP wanted suggestions so I gave what I used. Your response was to question Rodinal's use to push. I was saying, in more than a text bite, that there are lots of ways to do development other than 'the usuals'. That's all. The history is pertinent to this. People getting upset about the whole Rodinal stand thing happens. No kitchen sink. Nobody was targeting you. Relax, I am.

s-a
 
Again, my thanks to everyone for the comments, suggestions, and observations.

Gentlemen can differ.

semi-ambivalent said:
I did not take it as a personal attack. OP wanted suggestions so I gave what I used. Your response was to question Rodinal's use to push. I was saying, in more than a text bite, that there are lots of ways to do development other than 'the usuals'. That's all. The history is pertinent to this. People getting upset about the whole Rodinal stand thing happens. No kitchen sink. Nobody was targeting you. Relax, I am.

s-a
Click to expand...
 
Rob-F said:
Animosity? I don't think I was the one directing any animosity. In fact I have nothing against Rodinal; I admire it for its gritty sharpness and gorgeous midrange tones, and have always kept some on hand. I don't think anything you said has anything to do with my question. I think you are throwing in the kitchen sink, without addressing anything I said. Kodak's recommendation for Tri-X in one of their own developers has nothing to do with Rodinal. And why bring 150 years of history into it?

I'm being rigid? No, I'm saying I simply don't see why one would use Rodinal for pushing, since it reduces the effective speed, rather than enhancing it, and there are better develops for the purpose. Apparently I'll have to wait for someone else to explain it.

My question was about Rodinal, it was not a personal attack on you. I believe you took it that way, and responded defensively.
Click to expand...
Same here. Lovely tonality; beautiful sharp grain; lousy speed.

Cheers,

R.
 
Colin Corneau said:
Although on the topic of T-grain emulsions, Ilford's Delta 3200 is an ideal choice for you -- I've noticed it's a naturally lower contrast, perhaps to compensate for push-processing and its attendant increase in contrast.
For what it's worth, I've also had nothing but great results with their DD-X developer too, which is a great match not just for pushing but for that particular film, as well.
Click to expand...
Dear Colin,

Very true. I was thinking of slower films. Delta 3200 is a long-toe film that is especially designed for push processing; and which is indeed a bit muddy at its true ISO speed. typically 800-1200.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
No. Monosize crystal emulsions (Delta, T-Grain) are NOT designed to push better.

A traditional cubic emulsion (Tri-X, HP5 Plus) in a speed increasing developer such as DD-X will work better.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

This makes good intuitive sense. The cubic grains, having more volume, will have more sensitivity to light than the flatter tabular grains. There's more silver there to react to the light. So then cubic grain would have more speed than T-grain for the same reason that faster film is grainier than slow film. Still, T-grain or Delta film seems less grainy and sharper than conventional film of the same speed. Isn't there something contradictory about that? I suppose it is more complex than it appears on the surface!

Rob
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Colin,

Very true. I was thinking of slower films. Delta 3200 is a long-toe film that is especially designed for push processing; and which is indeed a bit muddy at its true ISO speed. typically 800-1200.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger, always a pleasure to read your expertise. It's good to be reminded that I always, always have a LOT to learn!
 
smk said:
Tri-X in DD-X at 800, and sometimes at 1600 works well (for me).
Click to expand...

Yes, I forgot to add this myself. I just have the best luck with DD-X and pushing. My experience with Tri-X, both at 800 and 1600, is that it looks, prints, and scans really well with this developer.
 
And I'll just chime in to say I've had very good luck with DD-X both as a push developer and for normal speed. I've also had great luck with Microphen for pushing, though haven't tried it as an all-around developer. I've read that DD-X is really Microphen in liquid form; but I don't know.
 
Just wondering: has anyone had successfully combined pre-flashing Tri-X and push processing to give the shadows a nudge ?
 
I've always been afraid to try pre-flashing. Afraid of ruining the roll and the pictures. That would be a good cottage industry for someone, selling rolls of TXpf. Maybe there could be TXpf 1600, TXpf 2000, or maybe even TXpf 3200. I wonder how much of a boost you get that way.
 
Me again, the OP.

Has anyone tried any of the (homebrew) Diafine substitutes?

Your experience and comments on results, especially shadow detail, please.

What is a realistic estimate of the speed increase from these two bath developers? Anchell suggests one stop for TriX, others suggest two stops up to 1600ASA.

True 1600ASA is an interesting proposition. It enables a Barnack Leica equipped with a F3.5 Elmar to be useful in common indoor lighting and to be also useable, without an ND filter, outdoors in sunlight.

It also enables a Rollei fitted with an f3.5 Planar or Xenotar to be useful for indoor available light work. The ability to produce large (MF) negatives from handheld available shooting is something valuable (to me at least).
 
DrMcCoy said:
T-grains are flat and about .166 - .142 the size of a conventional grain - allowing the emulsion to be thinner. Thinner emulsions have less light diffraction. The thickness is also affected by the lower thermodynamic reaction of the grains under development. The emulsion stays cooler (therefore stiffer) and does not allow the grains themselves to move, clump, and stack onto each other as easily. These properties are what give it increased sharpness and decreased grain.
Click to expand...

That was very clear! Now, how is the far smaller T-grain able to achieve the high sensitivity of, say, T-Max 400, Delta 400, Delta 3200? Is it possible that the light sensitivity is proportional to the frontal surface area, not the cubic volume of the grain?

And am I being proper to call the Ilford Delta films T-grain? I think they are a little different, somehow.
 
Rob-F said:
That was very clear! Now, how is the far smaller T-grain able to achieve the high sensitivity of, say, T-Max 400, Delta 400, Delta 3200? Is it possible that the light sensitivity is proportional to the frontal surface area, not the cubic volume of the grain?

And am I being proper to call the Ilford Delta films T-grain? I think they are a little different, somehow.
Click to expand...
Dear Rob,

Second para: yes, you are absolutely right. Ilford's epitaxial Delta grains are a lot cleverer than plain tabular grains (T-grains), which Ilford's research department tried on the way to Delta.

First para: you're right there too. Not only is there a larger surface area: a large, flat crystal can support multiple development sites.

There is a clue to yet another factor in the word "monosize". In a conventional cubic-grain film film, the crystals are of widely varying sizes, meaning that there are a lot of small, slow crystals as well as the big, sensitive ones. This is how you can use less silver and still get greater sensitivity in T-grain and Delta: far fewer "wasted" small crystals.

In practice, there's a lot more convergence between cubic and tabular crystal films than most people realize. Controlling crystal habit is one of the underlying technologies in improving both kinds of film.

Cheers,

R.
 
Rob-F said:
Kodak used to have a comparison chart online that rated four of their developers for fine grain, image sharpness, and effective speed.
Click to expand...
This comparison chart sounds very interesting but I wasn’t able to find it. Any specific terms I should search for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom