Tri-X Test: Rodinal and D76

[kaiyen]

how about shoot as 320 and dev as 400 in D76(1+1). Or shoot as 400 and dev longer (like add 10% of 400 time) -- that's what I do now days.

Well, then you're doing somethign different, and I don't think a test would be useful.

My test might indicate that TXT in rodinal gives you a "true" speed of 250, and in D76 1+1 of 320, let's say. That's the speed for getting adequate shadow detail.

The second you choose to shoot at 400 and then overdevelop, then you're pushing the film. Once you start talking about pushing, then testing is thrown out the window. At least the type of testing _I_ was going to do.

However...if you're question is what the grain and shadow detail looks like in these two scenarios, for instance:

TXT shot @ 320 in D76 1+1, developed appropriately
TXT shot @ 400 in D76 1+1, developed appropriately (which would be a bit more than the above, technically, but maybe only 15 seconds)

and a similar test against Rodinal, that might be interesting. But perhaps not worth my time, to be honest .

You'll only lose a tiny bit of shadow detail going to 400 from a real speed of 320, and you probably won't notice the grain other than large enlargements. Rodinal would be different - not only are you going from 250ish to 400, but Rodinal's mild acutance characteristics make for a grainier print, too.

allan

 

[kaiyen]

Dan,
Of course you make a number of great points. I'm a film-speed-test guy, and I used the term "real speed" based on my own approach to things. I do believe that there is a certain amount of shadow detail that one should expect if metered properly. But I also believe that the EI at which the film should be rated to achieve that density is different per person.

If it works for you (not "you" specifically, I mean the "general" you), then keep at it, definitely.

The only thing that developer tests will show is that there are (or are not) differences based on that tester's approach. One guy on PN found that if you aimed for a particular contrast curve, you got results from like 15 different developers that were nearly identical. But...he did find a major change in speed from developer to developer.

At the same time, Roger Hicks on PN made the very valid argument that we shouldn't always assume that Kodak and Ilford and etc are wrong about their ISOs. I personally don't stick to them very often, but there is a reason TXT is rated at ISO 400, etc.

allan

 

[titrisol]

If you are shooting 35mm is pretty safe to use the box speed.
However if you deisre to place your shadows in zone 4 like John Sexton suggests then you have to overexpose the whole scene by 1/3 -1 stop thus the "personal speed" is 1/3 to 1 stop less.

Dan,
Of course you make a number of great points. I'm a film-speed-test guy, and I used the term "real speed" based on my own approach to things. I do believe that there is a certain amount of shadow detail that one should expect if metered properly. But I also believe that the EI at which the film should be rated to achieve that density is different per person.

If it works for you (not "you" specifically, I mean the "general" you), then keep at it, definitely.

The only thing that developer tests will show is that there are (or are not) differences based on that tester's approach. One guy on PN found that if you aimed for a particular contrast curve, you got results from like 15 different developers that were nearly identical. But...he did find a major change in speed from developer to developer.

At the same time, Roger Hicks on PN made the very valid argument that we shouldn't always assume that Kodak and Ilford and etc are wrong about their ISOs. I personally don't stick to them very often, but there is a reason TXT is rated at ISO 400, etc.

allan

 

[luketrash]

Stephanie, I'm in this same phase in my photographical journey. I haven't used D76 though. I have been messing with Rodinal this past month, and what I find in stand development is that I'd been exhausting the developer. So just as a side note, make sure you have 10ml or so of Rodinal per 36exp roll of film. The negs SCAN great, but they look thin.

I've read and read and read stuff on the internet about development times and have tried combos I thought would be amazing, only to be disappointed I'm finding that the details boil down to agitation and what process the users vary on how they scan their negatives or prints.

In fact, my favorite negatives under a loupe usually scan like poo-poo.

I find myself still really appreciating Diafine I know what's gonna happen every time I put film in it. And it gives me the best scans so far, regardless of over/under exposure. Just my experience with my development style and my particular workflow with the computer/scanner though.

It's all so variable, which is why I enjoy trying new things at home and whittling away bad decisions as I go.

 

[titrisol]

How do your negatives look like in an enlarger?
scanning silver-film is a gamble and IMHO is not representative of what you have

In fact, my favorite negatives under a loupe usually scan like poo-poo.
.

 

[kaiyen]

The methods through which one can judge a good vs. bad negative for wet printing don't apply all that well for negatives that are to be scanned. For instance, as you've noted, thinner negatives scan better. Well, they look thin and not as good under a loupe. But if you take a neg that looks great under the loupe, it'll probably be too contrasty to scan well.

So...again, as I say over and over, it's about calibrating your system. You need to have a method that results in negatives designed for scanning. This can mean changes in EI, developer choices/preferences, techniques, etc.

allan

 

[luketrash]

I'm hoping that the future holds technology where scanners and enlargers expect the same negatives for the peak results

I can live with bad scans today, knowing that tomorrow may hold a better answer.