Tri-X @ 12800 ISO in Rodinal: Anyone have examples?

[Merkin]

I was checking out the massive dev chart a few minutes ago, and I saw a listing for a 51 minute semi-stand development for Tri-X shot at 12800. Has anyone tried this, and does anyone have some example images they could post?

Many thanks!

 

[tj01]

I've tried pushing to 1600, and it didn't work. Grains the size of golfballs and very contrasty. Perhaps others have more success. However, I've tried Microphen up to 3200 and it was acceptable. But 12800, no idea.

 

[Mr. Fizzlesticks]

Never going to happen. People lie on the internet all the time because they want to feel special. This is a particular egregious lie and people actually believe it. If you exposed Tri-X at a true 12800 you would be lucky if there was even the shadow of an image on the film after developing it. Don't waste your time.

 

[haempe]

Not at 12800, but I tested TX at 6400; Rodinal 1+50; 40min; 20°C

Have to say, the rest of the roll under more difficult light conditions was not printable. Blown lights and empty shadows.

 

[jsrockit]

Of course it'll work, but would it be sensible?

 

[mdarnton]

Of course it works. All you need to do is overexpose every shot five stops, or only shoot white cats on sheets that you want to print as black cats in coalbins.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

But, it would still be interesting to see examples. haempe, thanks for your example at 6400.

 

[Dana B.]

Of course it works. All you need to do is overexpose every shot five stops, or only shoot white cats on sheets that you want to print as black cats in coalbins.

Mmmm. Am confused. I thought pushing film at above its rated speed meant *underexposing* it, then compensating by developing it longer.

 

[filmfan]

Mmmm. Am confused. I thought pushing film at above its rated speed meant *underexposing* it, then compensating by developing it longer.

You are correct.

Pushing Tri-X past 1600 is often useless, unless you are trying to go for a particular look. I have tried Tri-X @3200 twice just for kicks, developing it in D76 1+0 and XTOL 1+0. The results looked nearly identical. I don't recommend it.

 

[grainhound]

Merciful posted an EI 12,800 photo back in 2005 in the thread I've linked below. Of course the shot isn't there any more, but he re-posted it upon request in 2009: page 5, post 112 of the same thread. I would recommend you read the whole thread; in the discussion it comes out that this extreme push seems to work if you scan the neg rather than wet printing it, and there's a fair amount of interesting discussion on pushing with Rodinal.

I should have mentioned that there are three reposted images at these ISOs: 25,600; 12,800; 1600.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4441

 

[dcsang]

I say you go ahead and try it - see what you think - I've gone as far as 12,800 and, I think, 25,600 but the results are probably not what they should be because I messed up my exposures. It can work, in a pinch, but the negs are uber thin however they scan well.

I used this link for help (@6400):
http://www.photosig.com/articles/1461/article

Do a search here for the username "merciful" and the thread named "Push It, Push It Good".

Cheers,
Dave

 

[mdarnton]

Mmmm. Am confused. I thought pushing film at above its rated speed meant *underexposing* it, then compensating by developing it longer.

My point was that there is no such thing as pushing film. There is a threshold below which film doesn't take an impression, and that threshold doesn't change with development. Increasing development changes higher values only, and as you progressively expose less and less, more and more of your darker values are pushed off into black, never to be seen again. Increasing the contrast, by development, fools people into thinking they are pushing, while larger and larger areas of the photo turn to black.

Thus my comment, that the way to get a good picture at 12,800 was to meter at 12,800 and then overexpose back to where you actually got a full range picture.

 

[varjag]

When people tell you they shoot Tri-X at 12800, their metering technique is suspect.

 

[haempe]

One of the less well...
TX at 6400; Rodinal 1+50; 40min; 20°C

 

[Moriturii]

More examples here of high ISO and Rodinal samples.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=927796&postcount=47

 

[Merkin]

Thanks for the tips, links, and advice, folks. I have recently gone back to film after an unfortunate and unfulfilling foray in to the world of digital, and the only thing I find myself really missing is the high quality of the high iso (9000, 12800) shots I can get from my D700. Hence, I am looking for a film that I can reliably push to those kinds of speeds for darkroom printing. I have been pretty much exclusively been shooting tri-x (well, arista premium, but it is the same thing) since going back to film, so I think I might have to give rodinal a go. Does anyone have a film that they like more than tri-x for pushing in to the stratosphere?

 

[varjag]

The obvious candidates, delta 3200 and tmax p3200.

 

[haempe]

For 3200-6400 my combi is TMZ (TMax P3200) in TMaxDev. (ei6400; 1+4, 12min; 24°C)

 

[Tim Gray]

the only thing I find myself really missing is the high quality of the high iso (9000, 12800) shots I can get from my D700. Hence, I am looking for a film that I can reliably push to those kinds of speeds for darkroom printing.

First off, you probably won't get results you like at those ISOs with film. Maybe 1600-3200, but much above that is going to be dicey and VERY dependent on how you expose.

Second, if it's really for darkroom printing, what I say goes double. Most of the examples you see of this kind of thing have a) questionable metering and b) are scanned. You will probably have a tough time getting all the contrast and range from your paper that you might need for a severely underexposed neg, like Tri-X at 12,800. You can do a lot of extreme contrast changes after you've scanned that are more difficult or impossible to achieve in the darkroom.

But, by all means, try things out. I'm of the camp that if you want speed, you should use a fast film, T-Max or Delta 3200, and stick it in a speed enhancing developer, like XTOL 1:1, DD-X, or Microphen. I've gotten great results from T-Max 3200 at 3200 in XTOL 1:1, though they are usually better at 1600.

I played around with doing some stand tests at higher speeds in XTOL 1:3 as well. The negs were definitely more developed (tones were shifted up much higher), but I'm not sure if there was really any more detail in the shadows...

 

[grainhound]

I have difficulty believing that P. Lynn Miller and Merciful engage in suspect metering practices. Merciful does scan everything, didn't see anything about Lynn's printing.