Tri-X at 1600

GeneW

GeneW

Veteran
Local time
6:36 PM
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
3,169
In my latest blog entry I've documented an experiment in available light, pushing Tri-X to 1600: http://northernjourney.blogspot.com/

I used HC-110 dil B for 28mins 64F with a modified Merciful agitation cycle. I would now like to repeat the experiment with Rodinal 1:50.

The Toronto contingent has some Diafine on order and before long I should be able to experiment with that too.

What's your fav film/dev combo for 1600 work?

Gene
 
delta3200 works quite well at 1600 in agfa refinal (although the d3200's true speed is considered 1250 in refinal, following Agfa's official sheet)
i especially like it in 120-format, where the grain is less visible

In the same time, i'm waiting for the results on tri-x pushed to 1600, 120-format, in the same agfa refinal developer. Don't ask me why this funky soup.
 
I've done some 400TX @ 1600 in stock Microphen. Doesn't exhibit much grain; the contrast is somewhat bumped though.
 
Not to hijack the thread Gene, but I just took a look at some of your portfolio shots and have to say that your "Birches & Fog" is an exceptional photograph. Well done.

Tom
 
T_om said:
Not to hijack the thread Gene, but I just took a look at some of your portfolio shots and have to say that your "Birches & Fog" is an exceptional photograph. Well done.

Tom
Click to expand...
Thanks kindly, Tom. That was from my first outing with the Hassy. I haven't taken the Hassy out enough lately. It's a lovely camera to use.

Gene
 
GeneW said:
In my latest blog entry I've documented an experiment in available light, pushing Tri-X to 1600: http://northernjourney.blogspot.com/

I used HC-110 dil B for 28mins 64F with a modified Merciful agitation cycle. I would now like to repeat the experiment with Rodinal 1:50.

Gene
Click to expand...

Gene, the images look great. I like HC110. It's been a while since I've used it (mostly 120 stuff). IIRC it is primarily a fine-grain developer and not necessarily a high acutance developer. I've heard the opposite on D76, though, regarding pushability. It has always been considered a good developer for pushing. I think it may depend on the dilution, because the solvency of straight usage and maybe even at 1:1 may have the effect you describe. You can get into some stand development times with D76 by going 1:2, 1:3, or more. I've used the stand development agitation techinque on shorter times with the idea on controlling contrast. It worked pretty good. I recently picked up some TFX2 from Photographer's Formulary which supposedly is excellent for stand development. Haven't tried it yet. Good job on the pics! :)
 
sockeyed said:
I shoot tri-X at 1600 and develop in D-76 1:1 for 13.25 mins with great results. The grain is good, nice detail in shadows and highlights, nice contrast.

Here are a few samples (click on 'all sizes' for higher-res images):
Click to expand...

Ben, my browser won't let me see your pics! :( I'll try IE. BTW, I'm curious, how did you come up with 13.25 mins? I *would* have gone around 15 or more. :D
 
Ben, Ray, it sounds like you guys have had really good luck with pushing Tri-X in D-76. I have D-76 in stock (I generally use it 1:1) but shied away from pushing to 1600 using it after following some longish threads on photo.net that suggesed that the shadow areas drop out quickly. Now I think I should do some experimenting.

Ray, could you describe your stand development techniques with 1:2 and 1:3? It sounds really interesting. I'd prefer to stick with D-76 if possible just cause I like it. I think the grain patterns with D-76 are more attractive than those with HC-110.

Gene
 
My favorite fast combos:

Neopan 1600 in A49 1+1 - quite OK at 1600 (though better at 800 - 1000)
TMax 3200 at 1600 (and still OK at 3200) in A49 1+1 - coarser grain than NP, but better shadow detail.

Roman
 
GeneW said:
Ray, could you describe your stand development techniques with 1:2 and 1:3? It sounds really interesting.
Gene
Click to expand...

Gene, I was "speaking" hypothetically on the dilution ratios. Generally, if you dilute you increase time and solution amounts, which could get you out to some long times. I agree it sounds like an interesting experiment to take D76 out to those dilutions/times, one that I would love to try.

I've used the "stand" type agitation (5 sec. every 3 minutes), with a different developer and normal exposures. These two different lighting situations were done using that technique:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/10039/sort/1/cat/500/page/3

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/10304/sort/1/cat/500/page/3

I haven't been pushing much lately. I shot some APX 100 at 400 and got some interesting results:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/9986/sort/1/cat/500/page/3

But most of my shots are in daylight (high to normal contrast), so I've been experimenting on that end. I've not pushed Tri-X with D76 recently, but when I did, I always used it undiluted. That's why I want to see Ben's images at 1:1 and 13.25s.

If I get a chance I'll try to mix up a liter or a 1/2 of D76 this weekend. If I do, I'll shoot a short roll of Tri-X at 1600, and try one of the higher dilutions/longer times. (I just need to finish the roll of NP 400 that is in my camera!).
 
Thanks Ray. I'll be interested in any conclusions you come up with. I'm still intrigued with Merciful's Tri-X/Rodinal experiments and want to do some of my own in the near future.

Gene
 
I usually use Tri-X at 1600 in Kodak Xtol 1:1. I've churned out such satisfactory results from that combo that I actually began shooting Tri-X at 1600 at least 50% of the time until my 100' roll and my purchsed rolls were all gone. I never have to think twice about spinning the meter to 1600 on my R2 or FE2 when Tri-X is loaded.

medium.jpg

medium.jpg

medium.jpg


etc..
 
Natron, nice shots and that sounds like another alternative. I read a posting on pn recently in which the photog said he got better *scans* with Xtol than any other developer for Tri-X, presumably because it was a bit finer grained which led to less grain aliasing. Do you scan your negs frequently?

BTW, what's your ballpark time/temp/agitation for Tri-X 1600 in Xtol 1:1 ?

Gene
 
GeneW said:
Natron, nice shots and that sounds like another alternative. I read a posting on pn recently in which the photog said he got better *scans* with Xtol than any other developer for Tri-X, presumably because it was a bit finer grained which led to less grain aliasing. Do you scan your negs frequently?

BTW, what's your ballpark time/temp/agitation for Tri-X 1600 in Xtol 1:1 ?

Gene
Click to expand...

I scan in more negatives than I print, by far. In fact, until recently, I ONLY scanned in my negatives. The Xtol negatives certainly scan in better than my Rodinal negatives... surprisingly, my BEST scanning negatives ever were HP5+ in HC110 dilution B. Anyway, my Xtol+TriX negatives do scan very well. I'd have to look back on my past notes on my times. Temp is always 68F.
 
Last week over on Photo.net I started a thread with more "Merciful" TX @3200 shots. I'll post 2 here. I went to 33 minutes at 68F, 1:50 and agitation every 5 minutes as usual.

I also shot some basketball with TX @3200 when I ran out of TMZ. They also look very good but I haven't scanned any yet. BTW this TX scans just great processed this way.
 
neilsphoto said:
Last week over on Photo.net I started a thread with more "Merciful" TX @3200 shots. I'll post 2 here. I went to 33 minutes at 68F, 1:50 and agitation every 5 minutes as usual.

I also shot some basketball with TX @3200 when I ran out of TMZ. They also look very good but I haven't scanned any yet. BTW this TX scans just great processed this way.
Click to expand...
Nice lighting in these shots! When you say more "Merciful" TX treatments, do you mean Rodinal 1:50??

Gene
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom