david.elliott
Well-known
No idea about acufine. Sorry.
Tri-X or fine grain films?
- Thread starter naren
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 36
- Views 5K
rogerchristian
Established
I recall that Tri-X 120 (TXP) was on an Estar base, thicker, stronger, and the 320 rating may have been to improve the shadow detail.
mfogiel
Veteran
I have used Tri X in Acufine, but I have used it as a one shot developer. BTW the film should be rated about 800. The shadow detail is there, but you will find the result a bit sharper and the grain finer but more gritty than with Diafine. For a one shot development, I diluted 1+3 and developed at 20 C for 15 mins, with very slow agitation x30 secs and then just a couple of inversions every 2 minutes . Here's an example in medium format:
naren
Established
Thanks for posting that pic. Yeah, I don't know it surprises me that some here say Diafine is good for up to 3200... a wonder that you'd get close to the same neg with almost a 2 stop difference in exposure. Or would it be also the same if shot at 400 ISO, in that case a three stop difference?
Part of my problem here is that the darkroom where I've done most of my work has been shut down for remodeling of the center for about a year and a half. I just do quick and dirty (very dirty with some kind of residue the other night) prints at the place where I process my film. The new place is supposed to open in about a month so then I can get to printing the 11x14s on fiber and seeing what these pics will really look like (before toning at least). But I've decided as I'm continuing to load up exposed film in the refrigerator that I had better get on with some assessment and I think experimention with a roll of T-max 2 on Friday. I also plan to set-up one of my negs for an 11x14 and just make a 8x10 quick and dirty. Will post some picks here too, soon I hope.
In the past I have used mostly Ifford's Delta 100 and the 400 in medium format (processed in DD-X mostly). I believe that for people in direct sun these films are not the best choice. Tri-x is certainly known to work as well as anything in that lighting, but if I find it too grainy I'm suppose I'll try Neopan. I shot a roll of it once a while back and I don't remember if I didn't really like any of those shots enough to print, or wasn't too interested in the experimentation, at the time... perhaps I'll dig up the negs.
Anyone care to comment on just how much of a difference there is in processing same shot in D76 vs. Rodinal vs. Xtol for instance? I just always went for fine grain before as I'd said, and went with the developer said to give the finest grain in the manufaturer's literature (e.g. Microphen or ID-11 when pushing Delta 1-stop, etc.) I also did a shoot with Ilford FP4 once by mistake because I was looking for a fine grain film and didn't find the key information beforehand- thought the extra 1/4 stop was a good thing at that time).
Part of my problem here is that the darkroom where I've done most of my work has been shut down for remodeling of the center for about a year and a half. I just do quick and dirty (very dirty with some kind of residue the other night) prints at the place where I process my film. The new place is supposed to open in about a month so then I can get to printing the 11x14s on fiber and seeing what these pics will really look like (before toning at least). But I've decided as I'm continuing to load up exposed film in the refrigerator that I had better get on with some assessment and I think experimention with a roll of T-max 2 on Friday. I also plan to set-up one of my negs for an 11x14 and just make a 8x10 quick and dirty. Will post some picks here too, soon I hope.
In the past I have used mostly Ifford's Delta 100 and the 400 in medium format (processed in DD-X mostly). I believe that for people in direct sun these films are not the best choice. Tri-x is certainly known to work as well as anything in that lighting, but if I find it too grainy I'm suppose I'll try Neopan. I shot a roll of it once a while back and I don't remember if I didn't really like any of those shots enough to print, or wasn't too interested in the experimentation, at the time... perhaps I'll dig up the negs.
Anyone care to comment on just how much of a difference there is in processing same shot in D76 vs. Rodinal vs. Xtol for instance? I just always went for fine grain before as I'd said, and went with the developer said to give the finest grain in the manufaturer's literature (e.g. Microphen or ID-11 when pushing Delta 1-stop, etc.) I also did a shoot with Ilford FP4 once by mistake because I was looking for a fine grain film and didn't find the key information beforehand- thought the extra 1/4 stop was a good thing at that time).
Last edited:
mfogiel
Veteran
For wet printing at EI 800 you will probably fare best with Tri X or Neopan 400 in Xtol, as Xtol is muddy at nominal EI, but it gets tonally better in a push development, yet it gives fine grain. Frankly, I care much more about the tonality and acutance (sharpness) than grain, this is why I dislike fine grain developers, so probably D 76 1+1 is a good compromise here. Anyway, to sum up, you just have to try things and see what works for you. BTW Neopan 400 @ 640 in Acufine works well:
W
wlewisiii
Guest
The old timers used EI1600 mostly, EI3200 in an emergency, with Tri-X & Diafine because 99% of the time that very flat neg would be getting printed as a halftone in a newspaper. Let's just say that a halftone will cover more than a multitude of sins and leave it at that... (once upon a time I was going to be a printer. I've fought with more than a few halftones...)
Nowadays, a nice flat neg, like what is produced by Tri-X at EI1600 & dunked in Diafine, just happens to scan beautifully. So some of us who use a hybrid flow, film + scanning, find that duplicating the old PJ technique actually works very well.
For what the OP is talking about, I'd suggest that a bit of experimenting is in order to be sure of the appropriate EI. Still, somewhere between EI800 & EI1250 with Tri-X, developing it in Diafine & using Mr. Kaplan's thoughts on flash & filters (more old PJ technique that works exquisitely today...) should work as a starting point. You should, I believe & in advance, burn at least 2x as much film as you expect your project to need so that you can be sure you know what your film/developer/camera/light combination will produce.
Shrug. That's my free advice. Take it as you will remembering it's worth what you paid for it.
William
Nowadays, a nice flat neg, like what is produced by Tri-X at EI1600 & dunked in Diafine, just happens to scan beautifully. So some of us who use a hybrid flow, film + scanning, find that duplicating the old PJ technique actually works very well.
For what the OP is talking about, I'd suggest that a bit of experimenting is in order to be sure of the appropriate EI. Still, somewhere between EI800 & EI1250 with Tri-X, developing it in Diafine & using Mr. Kaplan's thoughts on flash & filters (more old PJ technique that works exquisitely today...) should work as a starting point. You should, I believe & in advance, burn at least 2x as much film as you expect your project to need so that you can be sure you know what your film/developer/camera/light combination will produce.
Shrug. That's my free advice. Take it as you will remembering it's worth what you paid for it.
William
naren
Established
Thanks, just had a moment there... all this info is actaully great and I think there's too many options to just pick a couple and test them without a good potential for missing out on what I might like best. So I'm going for informed decisions and then less testing... but still hours and hours... not enough hours in the day anymore in this lifetime!
naren
Established
Thanks for the info... I knew there was a reason why D76 is so much so the most commonly used! Thanks for posting the Neopan/Acufine example (nice photo) and heads up on Rodinal (it seems like this is the favorite for most shooters- must be a fav developers poll on here right? It would favor the most common shooting conditions of RFF guys I suppose). Anyway Rodinal certainly sounds like a popular choice, with good results at EI 400 and pushing. How about shooting Tri-X in direct sun and pulling 2/3 or 1 stop?
The Edwal FG7 also sounds like a nice option perhaps, to get the Tri-x grain how you like it by adding sodium sulfite. Any opinions on shooting people with Tri-x at 250 or 200 and pull processing with this developer? Thanks to all for your input and great to see some nice photographs. I need to post some on here!
naren
Established
Also to Al, I believe, and the gentleman who mentioned again the idea of going after a throwback look of press photags and what not. It is not necessarily my aim to replicate a look like that but to create something I like. By virtue of the technical choices and their implications, and most importantly my vision, I hope to create something that is really more of note for what it is. A nuance that makes you think of certain works is great, but the goal is that it is just that. Whether it is Weegee or Terry Richardson. A lot of things have influenced my work and the consideration of grain was more so as to differentiate from work that is done digitally (although toning will do that as well). At the 11x14 scale though I've thought after the fact, a lot of films will give me images with nice a film look. As far as color filters, I have obtained a number of them and I'm still studying their effects. I've never heard of using blue filters for b&w however. I do have one deep blue Nikon filter which I forget the type, and an 80a or b I used to use when shooting color neg. I would have reached for my green filter to get the effect you were talking about. I think you mentioned something about different spectral sensitivities of b&w film back in the 50's perhaps. I've heard of this before. What influenced the change? I know b&w film is more blue-green sensitive, so perhaps it was even moreso before? More problematic? In any event, I've just seen in my Freestyle photo catalog some companies marketing films I think are a throwback to the type you mentioned or at least one of the other old film types.
david.elliott
Well-known
tri-x in diafine has scanned wonderfully for me. I dont have any issues with flat negs though. I lock exposure, adjust my black point and white point in vuescan, and then very little adjustment is needed at all in lightroom. A bit of a tone curve adjustment is usually all it takes. I very rarely make a contrast or exposure adjustment. I always take off the +5 blacks that lightroom puts in.
The following few photos are all tri-x in diafine, between 800 and 3200. Damned if I can tell which was shot at which exposure index. 🙂
The following few photos are all tri-x in diafine, between 800 and 3200. Damned if I can tell which was shot at which exposure index. 🙂
naren
Established
Well, those look great. I would guess the last shot was at 3200. The fish being so contrasty has you loose sight of the grain... but stiil looks pretty damn good. Not much more grainy than when I shot Ilford FP4 125 +1 and processed in Ilford DD-X.
Btw is it Joe Louis in that first shot? Nice one.
Btw is it Joe Louis in that first shot? Nice one.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Naren, "orthochromatic" films lacked sensitivity to red light. They were sensitive across the range from UV (although the glass in the lens blocked it) through green and a bit into the yellow. The first panchromatic films were premiun priced. Large format ortho films stayed in production long after they dissapeared in 35mm and roll film sizes. Portrait photographers liked the swarthy sun tanned look that they gave people, mostly men, of European ancestry.
I don't know about today's crop of ultra high speed emulsions but it was no secret that the ultra high speed films (Agfa Isopan Record, Kodak Royal-X Pan, 2475 Recording, Ilford HPS, etc.) from the sixties had enhanced red sensitivity because back then they were most likely to be used with tungsten light.
I don't know about today's crop of ultra high speed emulsions but it was no secret that the ultra high speed films (Agfa Isopan Record, Kodak Royal-X Pan, 2475 Recording, Ilford HPS, etc.) from the sixties had enhanced red sensitivity because back then they were most likely to be used with tungsten light.
Last edited:
venchka
Veteran
Lots of stuff...
Lots of stuff...
1. With flash, I would think that you could use any film.
2. Kodak BW400CN is wonderful in pubs.
3. Xtol 1:3 rules!
Very old, original Tmax 3200 @ 1600 in Xtol 1:3, 19 1/2 minutes, continuous agitation. Find the grain.
4. As noted earlier, NEW Tmax 400, TMY-2, will have finer grain and a nice straight line curve from black to white. Xtol 1:3 once more.
Lots of stuff...
1. With flash, I would think that you could use any film.
2. Kodak BW400CN is wonderful in pubs.
3. Xtol 1:3 rules!
Very old, original Tmax 3200 @ 1600 in Xtol 1:3, 19 1/2 minutes, continuous agitation. Find the grain.
4. As noted earlier, NEW Tmax 400, TMY-2, will have finer grain and a nice straight line curve from black to white. Xtol 1:3 once more.
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
If you're going for a 'fashion photography' look, i'd stay away from the modern grain films like TMax. Stick with Tri-X or Plus-X, and a traditional developer like D-76/ID-11.
If you can find/get it, i'd advise trying Agfa APX100/Rollei Retro 100, also in the same developer.
Both of the above suggestions are great with daylight and studio strobe. Not sure at all about how they work with on-camera flash.
[Do you like Peter Lindbergh?]
Another idea is to just shoot color neg film - Reala, Superia or Portra, and convert to B+W. Both should have very fine grain - finer than a B+W film - and oddly, the results can be very much like a traditional film, especially if you use a Plug-in (minus the grain) to get the right tonal response (Alien Skin Exposure or Nik Silver Efex).
If you can find/get it, i'd advise trying Agfa APX100/Rollei Retro 100, also in the same developer.
Both of the above suggestions are great with daylight and studio strobe. Not sure at all about how they work with on-camera flash.
[Do you like Peter Lindbergh?]
Another idea is to just shoot color neg film - Reala, Superia or Portra, and convert to B+W. Both should have very fine grain - finer than a B+W film - and oddly, the results can be very much like a traditional film, especially if you use a Plug-in (minus the grain) to get the right tonal response (Alien Skin Exposure or Nik Silver Efex).
Last edited:
david.elliott
Well-known
Thanks. Hmm, could be that the scorpion fish was at 3200. It was a rather dim tank at the aquarium. I wouldnt be surprised.
I think it is Joe Louis. It was at Caesar's in Vegas.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Marek: those EI 800 shots in XTol are brilliant? What time/agitation are you using?
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Silver based films have gotten less grainy over the years but there seems to be a maximum sensitivity to light. Beyond that point you're just pissin' into the wind and that point is in the 1250 to 1600 range using the ASA/ISO scale. A few films can give you a decently printable negative at 3200 and a few film/developer combos will produce a useable image at an E.I. of 6400 if you don't need any detail at all in the shadows and blocked up highlights don't matter.
ISO measurement though is based on the straight line portion of the H&D curve, which is the midtones. Praise the Lord that most PJ work was destined for the half tone screen and not the gallery wall because with deadlines looming you didn't always make the greatest prints.
W. Eugene Smith was famous for his ability to coax great images out of hopeless negatives. One of his favorite techniques was the use of potassium ferracyanide to brighten highlights, lighten areas of the print, and increase contrast a bit. He could go through a lot of cotton swabs!
You can also rub the developing print with your hand here and there. The heat selectively speeds up the development in those areas. When DuPont introduced Varigam, the first VC paper, it opened up the ability to do split filter printing, more contrast here, a bit less there, a bump through the #4 to slightly intensify the blacks.
This might all sound just SO primitive to those of you who cut your teeth staring at a monitor screen while chasing a mouse around her pad, and yes, you did get your hands wet, but for the most part we quickly got to the point where we'd look at the image on the baseboard, know which filter and where we'd need help from others, and most of the time the exposure would be good enough to hand the first print off to the editor.
Some very famous photographers did their best work in the darkroom while tokin' away or swigging Scotch straight out of the bottle, nobody bitched about cigarette or pipe smoke in the enclosed space, and a darkroom could be as much a fun place to entertain the young ladies as the Oval office was under Bill Clinton. It gave us something to do while the film was drying or the prints were in the wash. That's one thing I doubt you'll ever be able to do with P-shop on your computer. Not with your wife in the next room anyway. The light-tight door and the gurgling water in the print washer masked a lot of sounds.
(Moderators! Feel free to bowdlerize my copy. Thanks.)
ISO measurement though is based on the straight line portion of the H&D curve, which is the midtones. Praise the Lord that most PJ work was destined for the half tone screen and not the gallery wall because with deadlines looming you didn't always make the greatest prints.
W. Eugene Smith was famous for his ability to coax great images out of hopeless negatives. One of his favorite techniques was the use of potassium ferracyanide to brighten highlights, lighten areas of the print, and increase contrast a bit. He could go through a lot of cotton swabs!
You can also rub the developing print with your hand here and there. The heat selectively speeds up the development in those areas. When DuPont introduced Varigam, the first VC paper, it opened up the ability to do split filter printing, more contrast here, a bit less there, a bump through the #4 to slightly intensify the blacks.
This might all sound just SO primitive to those of you who cut your teeth staring at a monitor screen while chasing a mouse around her pad, and yes, you did get your hands wet, but for the most part we quickly got to the point where we'd look at the image on the baseboard, know which filter and where we'd need help from others, and most of the time the exposure would be good enough to hand the first print off to the editor.
Some very famous photographers did their best work in the darkroom while tokin' away or swigging Scotch straight out of the bottle, nobody bitched about cigarette or pipe smoke in the enclosed space, and a darkroom could be as much a fun place to entertain the young ladies as the Oval office was under Bill Clinton. It gave us something to do while the film was drying or the prints were in the wash. That's one thing I doubt you'll ever be able to do with P-shop on your computer. Not with your wife in the next room anyway. The light-tight door and the gurgling water in the print washer masked a lot of sounds.
(Moderators! Feel free to bowdlerize my copy. Thanks.)
Last edited:
Similar threads
