Tri-x overexposed

M

mszargar

Established
Local time
6:29 AM
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
197
Some weeks ago I shot a whole event using a film camera and overexposed almost every shot by one to more than three stops, thinking that I had loaded the camera with Portra 400 and that overexposing was just a way of getting dreamy results. Once I unloaded the camera I found out, to my surprise, that the film in the camera was Tri-X!

I have taken enough digital shots to save the mission. But I wanted to know what to expect one developing the Tri-X, and how to optimize the results. Any idea?
 
Isn't Tri-X a 400 speed film?

Wouldn't it be the same exposures as Portra 400?

Or did you over expose to get the look you describe?

If you did overexpose by how much?

Since I develop my own exposed film I would shorten the developing time.
 
I expose tri-x at 100 all the time. Have even exposed it at 50 and used a rodinal stand.
For me I use tmax dev 5 mins at 20c with results I like using normal agitation.
Other developers require different handling and time.

Here is the massive development chart. There should be times for holding back Tri-x in the pages.

Here is a frame shot at 50 and developed in Rodinal.

Tandem by Adnan W, on Flickr
 
Yes, the same as Portra 400, but Portra 400 has a significant upward latitude, so one can overexpose it to ridiculous levels. Here is the effect I wanted to achieve:

http://ukfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/
http://www.johnnypatience.com/richard-photo-lab/

With Portra it is easy, because one does not need to compensate for over exposure in development. So, one does not need to expose the whole role at the same level. I have over exposed the Tri-X by 1, 2 or 3 stops. This is the main issue: I don't know how much I should pull so I lose the minimum. Should I pull it by one stop or two stops? Which one is safer? My guess is that a -1 should be safer and that having +2 over exposure is less dangerous than having -1 under exposure. But then I may be wrong...
 
I see so there are different exposure levels on the same roll.
In this case i would do a Rodinal 1:100 1hr stand and live with the grain (Which I like you may or may not).
 
Here is an example where I had the camera's meter set for Plus-X when I was shooting Tri-x, almost 2 stops overexposed. I had the film processed at a drug store with no special instructions. The negative was a bit dense, but, as you can see, I was still able to get a good print out of it. (The attached image was scanned from a wet print.)
 

Attachments

  • FBS_WVAs.jpg
    FBS_WVAs.jpg
    118.8 KB · Views: 0
You overexpose and underdevelop when you find yourself shooting in a very contrasty light. For example here in the north the daylight in winter months can be beautiful but it's usually very contrasty or in other words strong light with very dark shadows. This is when I always shoot Tri-X @ EI 100 and develop accordingly. I could shoot it @ EI 50 too but EI 100 is OK for me. Here's one example of such an image.

8603255493_8ab2f1543c_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
Just develop it 15% shorter and you will be fine. I got good results with Tri X @ EI 32 developed in D76 1+1, actually much better than exposing at EI 250, which is my standard setting for this film. There is some sharpness loss, that's all. Long live Tri X !
 
V-12 said:
I'm curious, what would you say was the advantage or characteristic gained by doing this?:)

V
Click to expand...



The OP has exposures varying by more than 4 stops on the same roll.
Using Rodinal at 1:100 stand is one method I have used to save all or most of the images on the roll.
Some images will look better than others and as I said in my next post grain will be appearant. I like grain although not always.

If it was a simpler matter of having 3-4 stops of overexposure from box speed for the entire roll reducing development would be a route to go to avoid such intense grain stand might give.
Lowering tempature for the stand method reduces grain also.
I just happen to like the look of grain sometimes.

The image above looks like an old newspaper print.
It was a 30 year old roll of film I was testing from a batch of this film I picked up.

Even more grain from the same roll on the same day.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7388/9940172726_0c6ea03c74_c.jpg
 
A development time of 15 to 20% less than standard for exposing at box speed should save the mission.

A two-bath developer such as Diafine might also help, same as compensating techniques (stand Rodinal at 1:100, or even Beutler - if you can stand the grain).

Not much harm would be done in any case for wet printing. For scanning you really must try to control the highlights.
 
My recipes for Tri-X and D-76:

EI 100 D-76 20C 1+1 6min 30sec
EI 200 D-76 20C 1+1 8min 30sec
ISO 400 D-76 20C 1+1 11min

My method is to first observe the prevailing light. When the light is harsh and contrasty I use EI 100. In normal lighting conditions I use EI 200. I only use the box speed (400) when the light and shadows are soft. I can go up to EI 800 or even 1600 but in most cases I don't need to. I see no value pushing the film just for the sake of it.

I'm mostly scanning my film. If I would wet print everything I'd shoot *at least* one stop under my rule above. So your mileage may vary.
 
Great information guys!

Since I don't have the option to stand develop (I use a rental lab, and I can't really stay there for more than an hour per week), I guess the best choice is reducing the development time by 15% to 20%.

Now, Rodinal or D-76? I think we already have Rodinal available, but I may have to order D-76 if needed.

Thanks a lot.
 
f16sunshine said:
The OP has exposures varying by more than 4 stops on the same roll.
Using Rodinal at 1:100 stand is one method I have used to save all or most of the images on the roll.
Some images will look better than others and as I said in my next post grain will be appearant. I like grain although not always
Click to expand...

Yes but you are making it sound like the results are what you are after, not that you are rescuing cocked up exposures. I mean if you went out intending to overexpose the film by such a large margin and didn't want the adverse effects of doing so wouldn't you be better off using a compensating developer such as Diafine? I tend to think this is just part of the cult of Rodinal and nothing to do with results.

V
 
V-12 said:
Yes but you are making it sound like the results are what you are after, not that you are rescuing cocked up exposures. I mean if you went out intending to overexpose the film by such a large margin and didn't want the adverse effects of doing so wouldn't you be better off using a compensating developer such as Diafine? I tend to think this is just part of the cult of Rodinal and nothing to do with results.

V
Click to expand...

What's wrong with pursuing grain?
Answers here are a collective of methods and experiences. The results vary with different methods.
None are more or less valid just different.
If you don't like the results of rodinal when you have a variety of exposures on a roll then try something else.
I'm not making an arguement or case for Rodinal V12. Just stating how I use it and sharing the reason why I like it the way I use it.
Is it a cult?... maybe. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom