Tri-X @1600 in D76

[sanmich]

I processed a roll of TX at 1600 in D76, 1+1, 13.5 min as indicated.
It went BAD.
Not even in the ballpark. very thin neg.

But thinking of it, 13.5 doesn't seem right. I mean it's only about 40% added time for a 2 stop push. I would expect something in the +70% to +100% time figures.

any hint?

 

[sojournerphoto]

I think it will always be thin at 1600, possibly excepting diafine

 

[mfogiel]

I have only used D76 once, and I did not push, but my usual recipe' for pushing, would be to multiply your normal development time by the amount of stops of push. In practice, you have to cope with the contrast increase, and there are two schools of thought here: either you use low contrast developers concentrated (like DD-X 1+4), this way you keep the grain tame, OR you use dilute developers and semi stand development, to avoid increase of contrast and grain, like HC110 dil H or even rodinal 1+100. Personally, I am not a big fan of pushing, and having tried this and that, I would go for Acufine and EI 1000 as a limit for Tri X.

 

[Dwig]

I processed a roll of TX at 1600 in D76, 1+1, 13.5 min as indicated.
It went BAD.

Long ago in a galaxy far away...

... I used Tri-X in D-76 as my main film/dev combo. I never found that D-76 worked all that well for pushing beyond ISO 800. When I did use D-76 for that much of a push I would always use it full strength, rather than 1:1, to avoid the excessively long wet times which can increase grain.

D-76 is very temperature critical, like all similar developers, and you fail to indicate what temperature you used so it is impossible for anyone to judge whether your 13.5min should be anywhere close to correct.

You should also review the images very, very carefully. If they lack shadow detail (the clearest portion of the neg) then they very likely were underexposed instead of underdeveloped. No amount of push processing will bring out image detail in the shadows that wasn't exposed in the first place.

 

[presspass]

The times seem way too short. I use D-23, not that much different than D-76, and get decent results with stock solution at about 16 minutes, 68ºf. If I were to use it 1:1, the times would be considerably longer - in the neighborhood of 25 minutes or so.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I never found that D-76 worked all that well for pushing beyond ISO 800.

That was my experience as well. I found that HP5 could go to 3200 in D76, if you could live with the compressed tone range and the grain.

 

[sanmich]

The times seem way too short. I use D-23, not that much different than D-76, and get decent results with stock solution at about 16 minutes, 68ºf. If I were to use it 1:1, the times would be considerably longer - in the neighborhood of 25 minutes or so.

Yes, that's what seems "logical"
yet the official time is 13.5.
go figure...

I think I'll try to improve my measuring method and to process in the 20 min area.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I never used D-76 for push-processing because I was told it wasn't the best one for it. In fact, I abandoned it altogether in favor of T-Max developer, which supposedly is better for push-process. I'd recommend that you do the same: switch developers (if you can or want).

 

[Takkun]

Last time I pushed Delta that much (albeit in XTol) I ended up with litho negs, practically.

I'd try DDX as mentioned, or go with TMZ at 1600. 1.5 stops is the max I'll go, epsecially for 400 speed film.

 

[lawrence]

Example of Tri-X at 1600 in D76 stock (lit only be the light on a miner's helmet). Not much shadow detail but none needed!

To push Tri-X to 1600 in D76 stock my time is 11 min, therefore I think that 13 min is too short for 1:1. In my view, as per the other posts, you should not dilute D76 if you want to push. Actually I have always found Kodak's recommended times for Tri-x in D76 to be too short, whether pushed or not.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Lawrence that is a great shot, for 1600 EI there is pretty good tonality.

I myself have never pushed in diluted D76/ID11 always used stock. I'd rather push in Microphen, DDX or even Rodinal.

One thing (already mentioned) is to check exposure...

Hard to do with extreme lighting conditions and pushing.
Still try to meter for shadow and stop down two stops, hard to do when there is no shadow 😉

 

[bojanfurst]

Lawrence, that is a wonderful image. Michael, just like you, I had no luck pushing Tri-X to 1600 with any developer I tried. At the end, HP5+ in rodinal is now my go-to high speed combo. However, I never tried developing tri-X at 1600 in D76 stock so that is another thing to try.

 

[Highway 61]

I processed a roll of TX at 1600 in D76, 1+1, 13.5 min as indicated.
It went BAD.
Not even in the ballpark. very thin neg.

Wow - as indicated where ???

Tri-X at 400 in D76 1+1 is just perfect when developed 12-13 min at 20C... so...

Anyway D76 isn't a good push developer. At 1600, HP5+ or Tri-X will be excellent in Diafine or Emofin (two baths developers).

If you like to push, use developers made for pushing.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Wow - as indicated where ???

Tri-X at 400 in D76 1+1 is just perfect when developed 12-13 min at 20C... so...

Anyway D76 isn't a good push developer. At 1600, HP5+ or Tri-X will be excellent in Diafine or Emofin (two baths developers).

If you like to push, use developers made for pushing.

I think if you check the Kodak data sheet F-4017 it says 9 mins 1:1 rated at 400 and 13.25 1:1 rated at 1600 all temps 20°C

 

[Highway 61]

I think if you check the Kodak data sheet F-4017 it says 9 mins 1:1 rated at 400 and 13.25 1:1 rated at 1600 all temps 20°C

I knew it might be that Kodak data sheet. Yet... those data don't work out good, and I'm not the only one thinking so.

Actually that Kodak data sheet says 9min 45s with D76 1+1 for Tri-X at 400 (20C).

Which is too short as well...

 

[Colin Corneau]

A recommendation for the Massive Development Chart, online or as a great app for iPhone.

I'd also +1 a different developer. I've had fantastic luck with DD-X 1:4, for starters.

 

[NeeZee]

just pushed a roll of tri-x to 1600 in d-76 STOCK for 14 minutes and the results were quite ok if you don't mind some grain. your time seems way too short, indeed.

 

[daninjc]

The Kodak data sheet times are too low in my experience as well. My development is TriX 400 in D76 1+1 at 20 degrees, for 14 min 20 sec. Very happy with this after years of testing.

I knew it might be that Kodak data sheet. Yet... those data don't work out good, and I'm not the only one thinking so.

Actually that Kodak data sheet says 9min 45s with D76 1+1 for Tri-X at 400 (20C).

Which is too short as well...

 

[Denton]

Tri-X push: DDX instead

Tri-X push: DDX instead

I think Tri-X pushes pretty well, better than Delta 400, if one uses DDX. For example, 1+4 14 min 68F like this at ISO 1600:

Here is Delta 400 pushed in DDX 1+4 14min 68F, also at ISO 1600:

 

[Photo_Smith]

I knew it might be that Kodak data sheet. Yet... those data don't work out good, and I'm not the only one thinking so.

Actually that Kodak data sheet says 9min 45s with D76 1+1 for Tri-X at 400 (20C).

Which is too short as well...

That Kodak data might not 'work out good' but they are the recommended times for that film exposure combination from Kodak themselves; and are as such a reasonable starting point for anyone.

With correct exposure those times are actually ballpark OK for me, the problem with pushing is some people get thin negs and rather than increase exposure they just increase development time and pepper grain is the result.
What I'm wondering is if underexposure rather than underdevelopment is the OP's issue.

If you can expose correctly and develop to the Kodak times you will get less grain and contrast.
Testing and good exposure methodology is the key to getting acceptable results especially when using non standard speeds.

The times are only staring points, people will have to adjust them but be sure you aren't just adding dev time to thin negs and getting pepper grain.