Tri-X at 400... Wow

[Mr_Flibble]

Thanks John,

It was also my first outing with the Combat Graphic. It takes some getting used to. No parallax correction on the wire-frame viewfinder. And with the shallow DOF of the lens I need to practice some more at gauging shorter distances by eye.

Bright skies are another problem

I got 3 more rolls of Tri-X in the Fridge for now. Saving them for the next event at an open-air museum.

 

[johannielscom]

D76 and Rodinal would in my experience give similar grain appearance at least to up to 8x12."
At those print sizes the difference is marginal given good technique; I guess 'ridiculously grainy' is perceptual based upon individual preference.

...

I think exposure is more critical than you'd imagine. Metering for emerging shadow detail then stopping down two stops is going to give you a more accurate idea of apparent grain.

...

Exposure is the key; I think a lot of people underexpose Tri-x it's the exposure and subsequent development that gives the 'tonality' you crave. I think metering for the shadow where detail starts to emerge and stopping down two stops makes more of a difference than developer type when dealing with grain.
Look at this film (Delta 3200) pushed to 6400 (EI) and developed in Rodinal

There is tonality because I exposed in order to place those tones where they could be recorded. In other words I set my spot meter to 6400 and metered the black bag on the right then stop down 2 stops.

Is this effectively Zone System metering?

I love that image, and I love Rodinal so if this is what I could get using my fav dev 😉, I'm gonna try it for sure!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Gosh! Tri-X works better at its stated ISO than when underexposed and overdeveloped! What a surprise!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Is this effectively Zone System metering?

I love that image, and I love Rodinal so if this is what I could get using my fav dev 😉, I'm gonna try it for sure!

Pretty much. What it's really supposed to do is place the emerging detail in the negative at the part of the curve (in the toe) where density starts to rapidly build.
Metering is probably the most important thing if you want tonality and low grain, but development also plays a part.
I could have just gone with centre weighted average metering with that shot and I'd have got a much different result. That's why when people say 'I pushed the film two stops' they need to tell you where they took the reading from and if they adjusted exposure to put the emerging detail where it should be.

If I'd not stopped down two stops from the emerging detail then the EI of this image would have been 1600 and tonally it would have been different as the black bag would have been on the straight (linear part) of the curve.
Over exposure, underexposure and over/under development all enhance the visual appearance of grain and change tone (contrast).

If this sounds hard, it isn't, once exposed though different developers will give varying film speeds so some experimentation is called for to get the desired results.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Pretty much. What it's really supposed to do is place the emerging detail in the negative at the part of the curve (in the toe) where density starts to rapidly build.
Metering is probably the most important thing if you want tonality and low grain.
I could have just gone with centre weighted average metering with that shot and I'd have got a much different result. That's why when people say 'I pushed the film two stops' they need to tell you where they took the reading from and if they adjusted exposure to put the emerging detail where it should be.

If I'd not stopped down two stops from the emerging detail then the EI of this image would have been 1600 and tonally it would have been different as the black bag would have been on the straight (linear part) of the curve.
Over exposure, underexposure and over/under development all enhance the visual appearance of grain.

If this sounds hard, it isn't, once exposed though different developers will give varying film speeds so some experimentation is called for to get the desired results.

YES!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Gosh! Tri-X works better at its stated ISO than when underexposed and overdeveloped! What a surprise!

Cheers,

R.

Roger I honestly think it is to some people (a surprise that is), but then we all started somewhere 🙂

I don't know if it 'works better' at stated ISO than when pushed I expect it depends on how longer tonal scale you want in the negative (I know you know that too) 😉

The key is to give yourself a negative that you can get good results from with minimal effort-by good results I'm thinking suitable for purpose.

 

[ibcrewin]

I would love to go out shooting with you guys. You guys know so much!

 

[BLKRCAT]

Did someone say Tri-X in Xtol?


Untitled by nownownownow, on Flickr


Untitled by nownownownow, on Flickr

 

[Bob Michaels]

Gosh! Tri-X works better at its stated ISO than when underexposed and overdeveloped! What a surprise!

Gosh, next some will realize that the manufacturers suggested development times and methods are a good place to start and then to tweak if needed.

One could conclude that Kodak, Iflord and Fuji have actually used and tested their products.

 

[gsgary]

What about 26 years out of date Trix developed in rodinal

 

[Roger Hicks]

Gosh, next some will realize that the manufacturers suggested development times and methods are a good place to start and then to tweak if needed.

One could conclude that Kodak, Ilford and Fuji have actually used and tested their products.

Great quote from Mike Gristwood, late of Ilford: "Why do people think we'd deliberately give the wrong development times? Spite? Why would we want people to get worse results rather than the best possible?"

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jockos]

Good tips and advice all around.

Photo_smith/Jockos, I've been more careful metering lately, I guess maybe that explains it? I feel kind of dumb, I know you can make film look however you want based on how you expose and develop it as far as contrast and things go, I've been teaching myself everything with the aid of this site so I was just sharing what I've observed so far.

Please share some more creamy images here when you get the contrast where you like it!

 

[grapejohnson]

You guys were right about Tri-X @ 1600 in Rodinal, not bad! I shot a roll and developed it 1:50 for 18:30, inverting 5x in 10 seconds/minute.

zeppelin by scottkessler, on Flickr

I think it looks better than before, but is still quite contrasty.
Any recommendations? A minute less maybe? The highlights are pretty bright.

I haven't finished another roll at 400 yet, but will post some examples once I do.

 

[visualbassist]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/visualbassist/8667122459/in/photostream/lightbox/

that's the tri-x i love. developped in lc 29 (1+19)

 

[grapejohnson]

little nate by scottkessler, on Flickr

kandaci by scottkessler, on Flickr

I gave medium format a try, but I was using a Kiev 6C so I had to meter with another camera. I tried to cut the negatives before they were fully dried unfortunately so I got a lot of dust. Regardless, I'm still very pleased by this film at box speed.

 

[Jockos]

The second shot still looks pretty underexposed to me, how are you metering? Maybe it would be easier to try a incident meter?

 

[Pete B]

In other words I set my spot meter to 6400 and metered the black bag on the right then stop down 2 stops.

How do you think things would've been altered/affected if you'd used an incident meter?
Pete

 

[Pete B]

How do you think things would've been altered/affected if you'd used an incident meter?
Pete

Bump
Pete 10 characters

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Boy, you're in for a treat:

Try HP5+; same tonality and grain and it dries perfectly flat, unlike TriX.

FWIW, I've been rolling my Tri-X backwards (emulsion side out) so it's about 1.5 inches in diameter and putting a rubber band around it to hold it. I leave it that way for overnight to two days. Helps a lot but it's still not perfectly flat. (Not sure about the sulfur in the rubber band twenty years from now but it's only overnight.)

s-a

 

[Photo_Smith]

How do you think things would've been altered/affected if you'd used an incident meter?
Pete

Shouldn't make a jot of difference. I often use a Sekonic Digilite F meter too (I'm holding it right now).
So measure the light falling on (so the white cone points at your camera) the emerging detail or the part you want a hint of density (black bag in this case) and then stop down 2 stops so you place the emerging detail in the toe of the curve.