Pushing TX to 1600

[Graybeard]

I find that I'm shooting indoors (artificial light) quite a bit these days with film Leicas.

Clearly a fast film is called for. Tri-X rated at 1600ASA/DIN/(whatever standard one chooses) would be useful here. I use HC110 to obtain this speed, but not surprisingly, my negatives are dense and of high contrast.

I can remedy much of this in the darkroom, but-

The objective would be to avoid the extreme contrast ("chalk and charcoal") that can occur in push processing; featureless shadows, blown out highlights.

Based on experience, which developer (and processing conditions, of course) do other contributors to this forum prefer? Among developers, which one and at what dilution? - HC110, Tmax, Ilford's offerings, Xtol (and of course, Xtol homebrew clones).

For that matter, which lens? Would a "so called" low-contrast lens from the 1950's (read nikkor/ltm 50mm/f) be the best choice?

For that matter (again), what film? Is TRI-X) my best choice here?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Jake Mongey]

If you want to minimize contrast a better solution would be a T grain emulsion which is designed to push with less contrast and blown shadows and highlights such as Delta 400 or Tmax400

As for developer I would recommend Ilford percepetol for this use as ive had consistently pleasant results with it at 166 in Tmax and other 400 films. I usually would run it stock with reccomended times from the massive dev chart. I have had to pionner extreme times for Tri x and HP5 at 6400 and its performed quite well in those circumstances

 

[Roger Hicks]

If you want to minimize contrast a better solution would be a T grain emulsion which is designed to push with less contrast and blown shadows and highlights such as Delta 400 or Tmax400

As for developer I would recommend Ilford percepetol for this use as ive had consistently pleasant results with it at 166 in Tmax and other 400 films. I usually would run it stock with reccomended times from the massive dev chart. I have had to pionner extreme times for Tri x and HP5 at 6400 and its performed quite well in those circumstances

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. Perceptol is about the worst possible choice as it reduces true ISO. ISO of HP5 Plus in Perceptol, maybe 250. ISO ion DD-X, maybe 640. At this point 1600 is only 1.5 stops under, which is close to the limit for underexposure anyway. Give it another 15-50% in the developer (as compared with the standard time) and it'll be OK.

Unless film is developed to ISO contrast levels, the working speed is EI (Exposure Index) not ISO.

An argument from experience or worse still authority is never attractive, but I do have about a 50 year head start on you.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jake Mongey]

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. Perceptol is about the worst possible choice as it reduces true ISO. ISO of HP5 Plus in Perceptol, maybe 250. ISO ion DD-X, maybe 640. At this point 1600 is only 1.5 stops under, which is close to the limit for underexposure anyway. Give it another 15-50% in the developer (as compared with the standard time) and it'll be OK.

Unless film is developed to ISO contrast levels, the working speed is EI (Exposure Index) not ISO.

An argument from experience or worse still authority is never attractive, but I do have about a 50 year head start on you.

Cheers,

R.

Perceptol - oops I meant microphen

 

[BLKRCAT]

For my high speed low light I've been shooting Delta 3200 @ 1600 in xtol.

Gives adequate grain and a nice flat neg for scanning.

I recall that xtol is a better candidate for pushing. I've cranked Delta 3200 to 12500 with great results. Granted, medium format. Never tried a push like that with 35mm.

 

[Hatchetman]

I've tried all of the obvious films and have had best luck @1600 with Tri-X. TMax developer, D-76, or even Rodinal have worked OK. I like the f2-f2.8 range as below that focus becomes difficult.

 

[bayernfan]

hp5 @ 1600 in DDX, tri-x @ 1600 in XTOL. you really can't go wrong with these two combos.

 

[Sid836]

Microphen would be the best option. Pity that developer does not last long once mixed.

 

[Rob-F]

I find that I'm shooting indoors (artificial light) quite a bit these days with film Leicas.

Clearly a fast film is called for. Tri-X rated at 1600ASA/DIN/(whatever standard one chooses) would be useful here. I use HC110 to obtain this speed, but not surprisingly, my negatives are dense and of high contrast.

I can remedy much of this in the darkroom, but-

The objective would be to avoid the extreme contrast ("chalk and charcoal") that can occur in push processing; featureless shadows, blown out highlights.

Based on experience, which developer (and processing conditions, of course) do other contributors to this forum prefer? Among developers, which one and at what dilution? - HC110, Tmax, Ilford's offerings, Xtol (and of course, Xtol homebrew clones).

For that matter, which lens? Would a "so called" low-contrast lens from the 1950's (read nikkor/ltm 50mm/f) be the best choice?

For that matter (again), what film? Is TRI-X) my best choice here?

Thanks in advance.

Kodak used to have a comparison chart online that rated four of their developers for fine grain, image sharpness, and effective speed. HC110 wasn't the best choice for any of these purposes. They rated XTOL best for all of them. My top choices for pushing are DD-X and Microphen. Nothing against T-Max, but I never seem to use it. I always go for one of the other two.

 

[Graybeard]

Thank you all for the replies.

For those suggesting xtol, which dilution do you recommend?

 

[BLKRCAT]

stock

I never push diluted. I don't think its recommended. I believe delta 3200 doesn't even have a time for 1:1.

 

[oftheherd]

I've tried all of the obvious films and have had best luck @1600 with Tri-X. TMax developer, D-76, or even Rodinal have worked OK. I like the f2-f2.8 range as below that focus becomes difficult.

It's been probably 20 years since I tried pushing film with anything but Rodinal and stand development. My first attempts at pushing film were in Korea in the early mid-70s. All I had was Tri-X and HP5 for film, and D76 for developer. I found that D76 worked very well at 1600 and Tri-X. I did not really like what I got with HP5. In the late 70s early 80s, there was a product sold called Factor 8. It worked pretty well too. I don't know what was in it.

 

[kaiyen]

I pushed TXT to 1600 in stock Microphen, 16 minutes, all the time. Most of the 35mm stuff here are applicable. I love the combination. I, too, wish Microphen would last a bit longer, especially now that I don't shoot nearly as much as I used to.

 

[Steve M.]

People have been shooting Tri-X at 1600 and developing in Diafine for ages, so there's that. You may not get that ultra high contrast, but you get a lot of grey. I don't think you're going to get optimal negs in any film/developer combination if you're shooting any 400 ISO film at 1600 indoors. You will get shots that are "good enough", and develop a protocal in the darkroom by testing w/ different exposures and papers. That's usually the way it's done.

What I've always done indoors is use a fast lens at 400 to 800 ISO w/ Tri-X. A faster lens than 2.0 is going to be a better solution in my mind. Or just leave things be w/ your combination. I expect shots to look like you described in those conditions. It's part of the appeal.

 

[nightfly]

I remember back when I did a lot of film developing finding information about extreme pushing of Tri-X in HC110. I can't find the exact resource now but this is a place to start:

http://120studio.com/film-dev/pushing-tri-x.htm

Wait, found it in old Rangefinderforum thread (note all info names etc, cut from old threads in various places on the internet circa early 2000s):

To process Tri-X at ISO 5000, you use not HC-110 Developer, but rather,
HC-110 REPLENISHER. You can buy a 16-ounce container of the stuff at a
good camera store, although they may need to order it from Kodak, so you
may have to wait a while to get your hands on it.

To make a solution of this special developer, make a 1:15 solution of
HC-110 Replenisher. That means, one ounce of the replenisher to 15 ounces
of water. So, if you're processing 4 rolls of 35mm film, or 2 rolls of 120
film in a one-quart tank, mix 2 ounces of replenisher with 30 ounces of
water. Unlike many developers that use a 68-degree temperature, this
formula requires that you bring the working solution of HC-110 replenisher
to 75-degrees. The processing time is 5-3/4 minutes at 75-degrees, with
agitation for five seconds every thirty second.

That's all there is to it! Expect to see grain and heavy highlight
areas--that's part of the look. Send me a print if you try this formula.
I should note that this is a one-shot usage. When you're done, toss the
developer. Don't try to replenish the replenisher!

I'm sure this is a little more information than you expected, but I hope
you'll find it useful. If you're interested in learning more about
developing Tri-X and learning about some other developers, stay tuned to
B2B&W. NYI teacher Jerry Rice is about to offer his thoughts on processing
black-and-white film. I promise you'll learn a lot. In the meantime, feel
free to contact me with questions or comments.

Less Extreme:

Andrew, try pushing triX400 to 1600 with HC110. 1+100 29 Degress C for 14 mins with NO agitation to bring out the shadow details via compensating effect. Agitate only for the first 10 secs and that's all you do.

3200
1+100 hc110 19mins 30 degress Celcius. Minimal agitation.


Oh yes Ron, ei 400, 800, 1250, 1600 all in trix with Hc110.

at 29Degress C, 1+100 from stock: 7 mins, 8.5mins, 10.5mins, 14mins respectively, all without agitation except first 10 secs.
Report Post

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Rodinal 1:25
+ .25 - .50 grams of borax to 520ml working solution
25 degrees F.
2 minute water pre-soak, some agitation, 68 degrees
Pour in dev.
SLOW 180 degree inversions in the first 30 seconds
2 slow (2 inversions in 10 seconds) every 60 seconds
Stop, Fix and wash as you do.

Can't remember the time and I'm not in my darkroom. It's either six or 12 minutes for my condenser enlarger and wet prints. (Bag the HCB yellow filter stuff until you figure out the contrast you want.) If you absolutely do not want grain at this just buy a digital box. I'll post the time when I get home.

hth,
s-a

 

[semi-ambivalent]

12 minutes.

 

[Rob-F]

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?

 

[Colin Corneau]

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.

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. Perceptol is about the worst possible choice as it reduces true ISO. ISO of HP5 Plus in Perceptol, maybe 250. ISO ion DD-X, maybe 640. At this point 1600 is only 1.5 stops under, which is close to the limit for underexposure anyway. Give it another 15-50% in the developer (as compared with the standard time) and it'll be OK.

Unless film is developed to ISO contrast levels, the working speed is EI (Exposure Index) not ISO.

An argument from experience or worse still authority is never attractive, but I do have about a 50 year head start on you.

Cheers,

R.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

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?

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