Honus
carpe diem
I just finished a roll of Tri-X rated at 800. The developers that I have available to me are Rodinal, XTOL and Diafine. The Diafine I use when I expose at 1250-1600. I have been getting very pleasant results with Tri-X @ 250 and XTOL 1:1.
Any recommendations for Tri-X @ 800 using XTOL or Rodinal would be appreciated. High dilutions, stand development, special agitation techniques, etc. are willingly accepted. Posting photos to support your recommendations earns you extra credit
- robert
Any recommendations for Tri-X @ 800 using XTOL or Rodinal would be appreciated. High dilutions, stand development, special agitation techniques, etc. are willingly accepted. Posting photos to support your recommendations earns you extra credit
- robert
You could run it in Diafine anyway; 2/3 of a stop isn't that big a deal, and it's super-compensating...
W
wlewisiii
Guest
800? I'd dunk it in the diafine. As Doug notes, that's not enough off the usual rate to matter as much as some other factors.
William
William
Honus
carpe diem
That's 2 for Diafine. Interesting. I'd love to see an example.
Maybe more like 3 for Diafine (or at least 2.5) since you mentioned using Diafine with Tri-X. That loads it with the advantages of being familiar and on hand. Doing a Search on the gallery (all fields) for "diafine" yields 151 hits.
Overexposing 2/3 stop will have a minimal effect because of Diafine's compensating action; that is, your highlights are limited in density, and you might notice a little better densities in the shadows and perhaps a little lower overall contrast.
since you mentioned using Diafine with Tri-X. That loads it with the advantages of being familiar and on hand. Doing a Search on the gallery (all fields) for "diafine" yields 151 hits.Overexposing 2/3 stop will have a minimal effect because of Diafine's compensating action; that is, your highlights are limited in density, and you might notice a little better densities in the shadows and perhaps a little lower overall contrast.
Dave H
Established
I get better results using Tri-x at 1000 anyway, so 800 is well within my general metering accuracy range hence I wouldn't even blink at using Diafine. Sometimes I think it looks a bit better with a touch overexposure as the results aren't so flat.
Dave H
Established
Daniel,
Wow, surely those shots were taken using more than one candle !
Dave
Wow, surely those shots were taken using more than one candle !
Dave
T_om
Well-known
There was more than one light sources in all of those. Look at the hair lights, indicating a overhead source and also the reflections in the glasses.
I don't believe he meant "only" candle light.
Anyway, back to the question. Tri-X at 800 works well in Diafine. I know a number of people that use this ISO with Tri-X all the time. Especially those in a wet darkroom. It will extend the tonal range a bit and lift the contrast a bit at the expense of loosing a tad of highlight information.
Tom
I don't believe he meant "only" candle light.
Anyway, back to the question. Tri-X at 800 works well in Diafine. I know a number of people that use this ISO with Tri-X all the time. Especially those in a wet darkroom. It will extend the tonal range a bit and lift the contrast a bit at the expense of loosing a tad of highlight information.
Tom
derevaun
focus free
I think Diafine will do just fine, but it's also a good candidate for Rodinal 1:100 with reduced agitation. I use around 10" initial agitation, then a couple inversions at 10' intervals, 40-45 minutes total, as a low contrast baseline for box speed. More agitation gets you more highlight contrast, like pushing but shadows will be better. for Tri-X at 800 I'd start with something like 30" and 4 inversions per interval, as a guess. I find it's like Diafine in that it's hard to totally screw up a negative this way. It differs from Diafine in that it's probably a little sharper; it's different from Rodinal with standard development in that grain is probably less clumped.