trix 12500 isos, rodinal 1+100 stand dev 4h , It works :)

Eduard,

You really think I should go all the way out to 4 hours? I wouldn't pour in fresh because that's not what was done before either.

What the heck, I'll do 4 hours. But if I get bromide drag that ruins the test then it's your fault! :)

How much of a difference did you notice in those 15 minutes? Was it during printing? Or could you actually see the difference in the highlights on the negative? That would be amazing.

allan
 
kaiyen said:
Well, then there is a HUGE language issue here, then (and I don't mean non-native english kind of language issue).

When someone says: "I Think I am near iso 10000 rather than 12500" that means, to me, that they feel they have attained an EI of 10000 with TXT. Not just _used_ an EI of 10000. But attained it. Using it is to just put the dial there. Attaining it means getting usuable shadow detail with the dial there. Now, I know as well as anyone that EI can be anything - it's whatever you set your dial to. But that wasn't my interpretation.

If the point is that "hey, I set my dial here and I got something!" then fine. But if the argument is that the something that was gotten is similar in some way to what EI _400_ looks like...then, as sitemistic says, there is likely an issue with metering or something else in the method.

I would not be shocked if I got out to close to 1600 with usable shadows in stand development. I would be quite surprised. I expect to get to about 1000 at the high end.

I think I might have a greyscale strip I can put into the scene, too. So we can examine tonal scale somewhat...
by the way, I'm doing this over the weekend. I will be busy with work and school the rest of this week.

allan
Click to expand...


Hope it works for you.
 
Kaiyen,
Sure I'll take responsibility for bromide drag, but this thread was started with this exactly technique with no visible drag issues on provided samples. Don't pour in fresh dev either, I just said that so you might feel you're doing right thing.
I noticed difference when printing - overal contrast was significatly higher. I didn't test any push, BTW. I just wanted to see difference between Rodinal 1+200 stand dev and rotating dev.
All this push talks with Rodinal are very intreguing for me. Actually, I think there was some grain disolving applied during scanning... Can't believe in so grainless negatives with that much a push.
I'm very interested in your results because your background (as I can get from your posts) may reveal the real usable index for pushing TX in rodinal... Please, no offence to others, but I'm intereted in midtones - want to have at least couple of zones.
 
ed1k said:
Kaiyen,
Sure I'll take responsibility for bromide drag, but this thread was started with this exactly technique with no visible drag issues on provided samples. Don't pour in fresh dev either, I just said that so you might feel you're doing right thing.
I noticed difference when printing - overal contrast was significatly higher. I didn't test any push, BTW. I just wanted to see difference between Rodinal 1+200 stand dev and rotating dev.
All this push talks with Rodinal are very intreguing for me. Actually, I think there was some grain disolving applied during scanning... Can't believe in so grainless negatives with that much a push.
I'm very interested in your results because your background (as I can get from your posts) may reveal the real usable index for pushing TX in rodinal... Please, no offence to others, but I'm intereted in midtones - want to have at least couple of zones.
Click to expand...

I didn't disolved grain at scanning, just resised my scan to post it on the web ;)
 
Eduard,
4 hours 1:100 it is. It was not said specifically, but I will do 60s inversion at the beginning, then walk away. It's a nice stable temperature nowadays so I won't deal with a water bath.

And yes, I'm interested in a couple of things. I'm hoping to be able to accomplish them with a single roll. Don't want to do too many 4 hour EI tests :). I'll set up a scene like I mentioned. I should be able to use up only 1/2 a roll getting up to 12800. Maybe I'll set up another scene, with a range of tones (like vegetables or something) and do the same ramping of EI. We can look at the acceptability of the results both in terms of shadow detail and tonality that way.

Does that sound good?

allan
 
What fun!

BTW, this is TX @ 1600 in Rodinal/XTol, about 13 min. IIRC. There's a better range of tones available than show by my poor post-processing abilities. I would expect Rodinal @ 4 hours to be way different.

2141829689_90e9f72257.jpg
 
sitemistic, just to clear something up. That photo is not mine and I think with the link and the photographers name on the site I have not violated rule 6. I don't think sitemistic misunderstood me I just don't want others to. The reason I posted it is exactly what sitemistic has said, they don't look any different.
 
Pau, Cyrille, everyone,

I've been mixing everyone's names up so I apologize about that. Just want to say sorry for not paying better attention to who was whom.

allan
 
It seems we have a lot of confusion here with terminology.

Exposure index (EI) is *not* the same as ISO speed.

ISO speed is specified in terms of shadow detail at standard contrast, and for any film can be changed to either side (but only so much, maybe +/- a stop) by altering developer.

Exposure index is whatever made-up speed you decide to shoot your film at. There are no claims about retaining shadow detail or maintaining ISO-specified contrast. You can push or pull your film as much as you want to any exposure index, but only at one point EI would conform to ISO speed.

There is no film with attainable ISO speed above 1250 or so. The "3200" part in Delta 3200 and TMZ is recommended exposure index, but it already is a push, with contrast still close to normal but shadows fading out.

So my understanding is, Allan talks about real ISO speed here, while le vrai about EI he used. Hence it is no surprise that shadow detail in examples is gone and the contrast above normal.

However just as sitemistic I am very surprised that at EI 12800, 400TX would give such an acceptable result. The examples shown look more like Tri-X rated at EI 1600 or so to me, and I've done my share of stand development in Rodinal with various films.

Maybe I should give it a try myself someday :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom