Tri-X at 3200… Best developer thinking of tonality?

Juan Valdenebro

Juan Valdenebro

Truth is beauty
Local time
8:18 AM
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
4,353
Hi to all forum members…
Brief intro:
I know talking about good tonality here, is nearly absurd… But the fact is I can’t buy fast 3200 film where I live, and the last time I asked a relative to bring me some from the USA, I got it fogged after passing through 3 airports… So, I’ve decided not to buy another film and just use my Tri-X at 3200 for the uncommon low light moments that, however, do exist: sometimes, inside churches, or in the night, or even indoors, I meter at 3200 and I get 1/8th or 1/15th at f1.4, so I got no other option than shooting at 3200… I know what this implies visually, so the idea is doing it without too dramatic results… Let´s talk about different developers options...
As usual, information on the web is mixed… Well mixed! Some say a several hours stand with Rodinal is the only way to control contrast… Others swear by stock D-76… Journalists recommend HC-110… And then there are lots of people using Diafine and Xtol… Experts say apart from Microphen and DDX nothing works… Other enthusiasts claim even solvent speed-loss developers like Microdol-X can be used perfectly…
Obviously, not knowing how people have metered scenes that often include strong lights, drives my conclusions close to zero… What to judge from a screen after scanning and photoshop? I think I prefer words…
I’m in great doubt, because at that speed, I’m not sure if keeping (with Rodinal) that grain crisp and big, is the best idea, so, perhaps overall tone might be the main goal, even losing the sharp grain I like with Tri-X… Maybe it’s time for buying a new developer just for this push that I think I’ll have to do for the rest of my life…
When I meter at 3200 I mean metering a middle luminance surface at 3200 with my handheld meter in its reflected light position with the spot meter, or metering with my camera meter an appropriate scene at 3200 with middle values and without white/clear walls or light sources, or, in case of metering incident light, metering at 3200 pointing the hemisphere to camera and, from that reading, opening one f-stop: that is, like a 1600 incident metering: at least with my Sekonic, since new, incident metering seems to care one stop more (less light) for controlled highlights on slide film, so at a given ISO, for the same scene, reflected metering with the same Sekonic, instead of incident metering, asks for twice the light, and I’ve found that’s correct for negative film, and same as in camera meters…
So, Tri-X users and pushers, what have you found?
Thanks a lot!
Cheers,
Juan
 
Thanks, mfogiel!
I hadn't noticed it... Looks like an interesting, technical and modern option... Has anybody used it? Similar results to any other developer?
For Tri-X they have data for close to half box speed ISO only... Any idea on how it works for wild pushing with classic emulsions?
Cheers,
Juan
 
OK, cool! I saw it and read the interview... Hope they offer it again soon...
I'll check from time to time... Thanks!
Cheers,
Juan
 
Looking forward to seeing what people here have used. I want to do some again as well. I haven't pushed Tri-X in a long time. Last time was probably 25 years ago using a developer which if I recall correctly was called Factor 8. It seemed to work well. I did push Tri-X 400 to 1600 in D76 1:1, and got a contrasty photo, but not bad. I was surprised to find street lights giving me circles of lens flare.

Good luck and I hope to find something I can use as well. I have Rodinal and HC110. Even Pyro, but I don't think I ever heard of that being used to push film. I do intend to use the Rodinal for some old film and some rather ancient film. Have you tried it at all?
 
oftheherd said:
Looking forward to seeing what people here have used. I want to do some again as well. I haven't pushed Tri-X in a long time. Last time was probably 25 years ago using a developer which if I recall correctly was called Factor 8. It seemed to work well. I did push Tri-X 400 to 1600 in D76 1:1, and got a contrasty photo, but not bad. I was surprised to find street lights giving me circles of lens flare.

Good luck and I hope to find something I can use as well. I have Rodinal and HC110. Even Pyro, but I don't think I ever heard of that being used to push film. I do intend to use the Rodinal for some old film and some rather ancient film. Have you tried it at all?
Click to expand...

I've done it with Rodinal only. As I said, I'm not sure if that big grain mixed with loss of shadow detail is the best look we can get... Maybe not... (?)
From my recent two days research on the web :rolleyes: I will name the developer I've liked the most from visual examples: HC-110 highly diluted. But I want to hear comments because I haven't seen prints of any kind, only screen images, and for sure lots of forum members have tried several developers, and even compared them through time... Obviously 3200 is a serious compromise, always...
Here's a link to someone's test of Tri-X at 3200 comparing a few developers... Curiously, the one I like the most, or hate the least :), is a formula called Super Soup, containing... drum roll... HC-110 too:
http://emirco.net/photo/projects/Tri-X_Test_3200_6400_2011/Tri-X-6-Developers-High-ISO-Test.pdf
Let's wait for some comments...
Cheers,
Juan
 
For processing to a normal EI, say box speed + or -, Xtol will yield slightly higher speed than HC110. So I'd probably start with Xtol instead of HC110.
I don't think Kodak publishes any guidelines beyond 800 though.
Xtol diluted 1:2 and used with a stand technique may get you where you'd like to be, it will be coarser grain than full strength or 1:1 (the most dilution Kodak currently recommends), but probably finer than what you'd get from Rodinal. The high dilution will give you a lot of compensating effect.

There is floating around the web a Kodak Germany Xtol data sheet with suggested times for 1:2 dilutions, again, it probably won't have times for 3200, but you can start with extrapolating from the times it does have.
Have you considered using TMax 400 instead of Tri-X for this extreme pushing? It has somewhat better latitude than Tri-X and may respond better.

OTH if you are shooting static subjects, why not expose at your normal EI?
 
Tri-X will never be an iso 3200 film. There is no magic elixir that will turn it into such. It is a nominal iso 400 film that you may get to 800 but that is about the limit. Film speed is simply a function of the film attributes.

Now you can shoot it at 3200 and end up with a perfectly usable neg that is simply 2 stops underexposed and thus lacks shadow detail and tonality. But never believe it will ever be an iso 3200 film.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Tri-X will never be an iso 3200 film. There is no magic elixir that will turn it into such. It is a nominal iso 400 film that you may get to 800 but that is about the limit. Film speed is simply a function of the film attributes.

Now you can shoot it at 3200 and end up with a perfectly usable neg that is simply 2 stops underexposed and thus lacks shadow detail and tonality. But never believe it will ever be an iso 3200 film.
Click to expand...

Have you believed that, Bob?
I guess none of us have... Well, you shouldn't, just in case...;)
And no, our negatives aren't just 2 stops underexposed negatives: they are 3 stops underexposed, and, well overdeveloped too, and they're great, and just as we want them, without technical suffering and without photographic bitterness :) Just one more piece in the puzzle for those of us who want to see it complete.
Cheers,
Juan
 
Juan, google for Barry Thornton and sodium metaborate. There's a lot of stuff out there about using a two bath developer. More tonality, etc etc. It's also possible to use soduim metaborate as a 2nd bath with prepackaged developers eg. HC110. This stuff is used also used in the food industry as a preservative so ordering and having it shipped should not be a problem. Sodium sulfite can be added to the developer to tame grain at the expense of sharpness. Much testing is recommended.
 
funkydog said:
Juan, google for Barry Thornton and sodium metaborate. There's a lot of stuff out there about using a two bath developer. More tonality, etc etc. It's also possible to use soduim metaborate as a 2nd bath with prepackaged developers eg. HC110. This stuff is used also used in the food industry as a preservative so ordering and having it shipped should not be a problem. Sodium sulfite can be added to the developer to tame grain at the expense of sharpness. Much testing is recommended.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks, I'll check it!
By the way, does anybody know or imagine why does Kodak recommend on Tri-X 400's datasheet, for 35mm rolls shot at 3200 and developed in reel tanks, Xtol only?
Cheers,
Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
.....By the way, does anybody know or imagine why does Kodak recommend on Tri-X 400's datasheet, for 35mm rolls shot at 3200 and developed in reel tanks, Xtol only?
Cheers,
Juan
Click to expand...

My guess would be that it's the best recommendation. The well-known graphic of Kodak's film developers showing shadow speed, grain and acutance shows Tmax developer slightly faster (shadow detail) than any of the others (just a bit better than Xtol). BUT, they indicate that TMax developer is far worse in grain, important when pushing.
 
Last edited:
Bob Michaels said:
Tri-X will never be an iso 3200 film. There is no magic elixir that will turn it into such. It is a nominal iso 400 film that you may get to 800 but that is about the limit. Film speed is simply a function of the film attributes.

Now you can shoot it at 3200 and end up with a perfectly usable neg that is simply 2 stops underexposed and thus lacks shadow detail and tonality. But never believe it will ever be an iso 3200 film.
Click to expand...

+1. I'm in that camp myself. I use a speed increase developer, either XTOL, Microphen, DD-X, or TMax. Of these, I find Microphen to give the greatest speed increase. But we are talking about a 2/3 to one stop increase. That doesn't mean we can't push to a higher EI (exposure index); but I think Bob is right to say that if we do this, we are only underexposing. Except for that 2/3 stop increase, we haven't really increased the ISO rating. I would explain it by saying we are sacrificing shadow detail--a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

EI is just whatever number we set the camera to. ISO is the inherent speed of the film. Pushing to a higher EI is done with the film speed dial. Increasing the ISO can only be done at the film factory, not in the camera.
 
funkydog said:
..... It's also possible to use soduim metaborate as a 2nd bath with prepackaged developers eg. HC110. This stuff is used also used in the food industry as a preservative so ordering and having it shipped should not be a problem........
Click to expand...

The preservative you're thinking of is sodium metabisulfite (in effect, a source of SO2), which is an acidic salt so no good as a bath_2.

Of course, you're right that sodium metaborate (alkaline) is the bath_2 recommended by Thornton and others.
 
Hi Rob,
As I said peviously, there was nothing new in Rob's post or in yours: we all know how pushing works... But the difference between underexposing and pushing is as relevant as the difference between running a marathon and never drinking water again, or drinking water after running it... It's pushing what we're doing here, instead of underexposing, and it should be done considering it while metering, while composing and while developing, and it's healthy as water, because no matter the real film's ISO and no matter the used EI, there are lots of images that remain great even if dark grays become pure black... It doesn't matter at all... If those frames were well pushed and composed, the light on the middle and high values of the scene will be fine on the final image. I prefer a good 35mm pushed handheld photograph to 99 weak half-box speed MF or LF tripod photographs.
Cheers,
Juan
 
I've read several times people develop with HC-110 at high temperatures... 29C is common... And they comment that developer isn't too sensitive (tonal or grain changes) to temperature... Has someone tested this? Doesn't it produce smaller grain at much lower temperature?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Juan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom