traveler_101
American abroad
I am thinking about pushing Tri-X to 1600 in order to shoot interiors (churches) with a slow lens--CV 15/4.5. Develop in D76.
Should I experiment with pushing Tri-X?
- Thread starter traveler_101
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 32
- Views 4K
jsrockit
Moderator
It can't hurt to try, but wouldn't a tripod make more sense?
I've used tri-x at 1600 before and it works well enough.
I've used tri-x at 1600 before and it works well enough.
Monochrom
Well-known
Hi, i don´t develop myself just send to a workshop, and a few months ago i pushed it to 1600...results were perfect, can´t complain.
Although using a tripod could make better results IMHO.
Although using a tripod could make better results IMHO.
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
Could be fun, why not. You need to like the contrasty look though
stompyq
Well-known
Any reason you want to use D76? I routinely rate Tri-X at 1250 and develop in Diafine with great results
behyer
Member
Back in the day I shot a lot of Tri-X at 1600, and developed in Diafine or Acufine. It held up pretty well. Results at 3200 weren't very good, though, shadow areas lost most of their details.
Much more appealing was shooting it at 200 and pulling the development 20%. Makes for a nice, long tonal scale.
Much more appealing was shooting it at 200 and pulling the development 20%. Makes for a nice, long tonal scale.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Should be fine with a speed increasing developer, if not try Delta 3200 which will give marginally better shadow detail at 1600 especially in DDX/Microphen.
StillKicking
Established
You should give it a go. Since Neopan 1600 disappeared from the shelves I have pushed Tri X quite frequently with good results.
Rodinal 1:100 stand development works well but I did find the results touch grainy for my tastes.
Rodinal 1:100 stand development works well but I did find the results touch grainy for my tastes.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Tri-X @ 1600 is a no brainer - use Xtol though - you can go even higher (of course) - 25,600 even; in Rodinal - stand development. Do a search here on threads by "Merciful" - the thread is titled "Push it, Push it good"
Cheers,
Dave
Cheers,
Dave
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
I second using Xtol for pushing, hard to mess up
R
rpsawin
Guest
Yep...good advice. Delta 3200 pulled to 1600 and developed in DDX will yield very nice negatives.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
Untitled by nownownownow, on Flickr
Untitled by nownownownow, on Flickr
Tri-X at 3200 in Xtol (stock) Light was very contrasty, explains lack of shadow detail. There really was none.
mdarnton
Well-known
"Pushing" doesn't really increase film speed--all it does is increase contrast, leaving the shadows even more empty because they will get less exposure rather than more. Your shadows won't gain a thing, and the highlights will get brighter. It seems like a church interior, with deep shadows and spots and streaks of full light is exactly the place you do NOT want to increase contrast.
Use a tripod, instead.
Use a tripod, instead.
oftheherd
Veteran
Are you talking about static shooting of the interior only, or for activities such as sermons/wedding?
If the former, a tripod will indeed give you better shots. Also, consider painting with light.
If the former, a tripod will indeed give you better shots. Also, consider painting with light.
S
squareshooter
Guest
In the end you are the only person who can judge what will work for you best and get you what you want. Why not push one roll, pull one roll and use a tripod on another? Find what you need/want and go with that. I presume you want a "stately" look so you might think about a bigger negative.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Yes. I did that for the first roll I ever developed myself. Tri-X with Diafine at ISO1250 under high contrast lighting is wonderful.
Sarah Bettens (K's Choice), Heerlen by Ronald_H, on Flickr
Pushing with HC-110 works well too (Anton Corbijn style, although I don't claim to be nearly as good)
Dani - The Jacks by Ronald_H, on Flickr
2WK
Rangefinder User
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=927796&postcount=47
I always use Rodinal with excellent results.
I always use Rodinal with excellent results.
redisburning
Well-known
if you don't mind empty shadows, then do it.
long tonal scale isn't for everyone. sometimes I think people get too caught up in believing their way is the right way, rather than the right way for them. I prefer blocked shadows myself. b&w is already an abstraction from reality, so do whatever you like. I know what look I would be going for shooting the inside of a church and it's not tri-x @ 200 in bright sunlight, that's for sure. YMMV.
long tonal scale isn't for everyone. sometimes I think people get too caught up in believing their way is the right way, rather than the right way for them. I prefer blocked shadows myself. b&w is already an abstraction from reality, so do whatever you like. I know what look I would be going for shooting the inside of a church and it's not tri-x @ 200 in bright sunlight, that's for sure. YMMV.
L Collins
Well-known
I shoot all my Tri-X @ 1600 and develop in Xtol. I like the higher contrast and the grain from Xtol is not much more pronounced than rating Tri-X @ 400 and developing in D76.
traveler_101
American abroad
You guys are giving me a lot to think about. Thanks!
In answer to some of the questions: I have developed about 40 rolls of film so far. I have not experimented with a lot of developers--following the advice to stick to one or two developers to begin with, in my case D76 and Rodinal. I do have XTOL unmixed, haven't used it yet so this might give me an opportunity to do so. Diafine has not been on my radar screen.
I am not in control of the camera as of yet . . . not able to identify and achieve specific looks. I want to capture the mystery of a cathedral; maybe exaggerate the effect of light entering or isolate a particular feature of the architecture within the vastness of the space.
One thing I have done is eliminate film type as a variable, for a while anyway. I have 60 rolls of Arista Premium 400 (Tri-X). I can afford to do some experimenting--try different approaches. Oh yes, no tripod--and no opportunity to carry one (at least for now). I will be shooting my Bessa-T.
In answer to some of the questions: I have developed about 40 rolls of film so far. I have not experimented with a lot of developers--following the advice to stick to one or two developers to begin with, in my case D76 and Rodinal. I do have XTOL unmixed, haven't used it yet so this might give me an opportunity to do so. Diafine has not been on my radar screen.
I am not in control of the camera as of yet . . . not able to identify and achieve specific looks. I want to capture the mystery of a cathedral; maybe exaggerate the effect of light entering or isolate a particular feature of the architecture within the vastness of the space.
One thing I have done is eliminate film type as a variable, for a while anyway. I have 60 rolls of Arista Premium 400 (Tri-X). I can afford to do some experimenting--try different approaches. Oh yes, no tripod--and no opportunity to carry one (at least for now). I will be shooting my Bessa-T.
Similar threads
