TriX at 1600 & 3200

Calzone said:
Larry,


Some people will say that Acros looks too digital because it is so clean and fine grain, but these same people would probably dislike large format photography.

What I found so amazing is how small and fine grained Tri-X is due to the minimized agitation. I really had to A-B film on a light table with a 8X lupe to see that the Tri-X had slightly bigger grain.

Cal
Click to expand...

I never really thought that what is now called "the film look", and what used to be just called a photograph, had all that much to do with grain. Because of that Acros has always looked like film to me, very nice film. To me it doesn't look at all digital, but if one conflates film with grain, then I guess it would.

I grew up shooting verichrome pan and Kodachrome 25 almost exclusively-and those were plenty fast for me at the time-and I never realized that one day people would say those films looked digital or too clean, because of the lack of grain.

Thanks for the added points about Tri-x as well. Ordered some Diafine two days ago. Because of its purported lack of temperature sensitivity, I thought it might be a good fit with my Rondinax. Looking forward to it.

Thanks for all the useful advice, Cal.
 
As an old-school press photog (night high school football w/ a Nikon FM, Tri-X @3200 and more) I'll put a vote in for Diafine. Never tried it as a two-bath solution, but it is amazing stuff. Retains shadow detail and doesn't block up highlight. That said, can get grain the size of softballs if you're not careful. Just experiment and see what works best for you.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Ordered some Diafine two days ago. Because of its purported lack of temperature sensitivity, I thought it might be a good fit with my Rondinax.
Click to expand...

Larry,

What is Rondinax? Also in what context would it fit with Diafine.

I will add that if you want a true/honest 1000-1250 ISO Tri-X with 7+4 does the job (mentioned above), but grain gets rather pronounced.

It seems that Kodak 5222 really responds well to Diafine and has a smooth look. By mistake I shot the 5222 at 800 ISO (no filters) and then developed using Diafine 7+4. It seems that the 5222 negatives had many of the qualities of a Tri-X negative, but it lacked the vulnerability to unwind the contrast so much that sometimes leads to flat negatives.

The 5222 with a 3+3 looks very interesting to me, but it is still a bit early to figure out film speed. Anyways this could be my next film to exploit to shoot in vast quantities now that Freestyle Arista Premium is no longer available (I still have about 40 rolls that I paid $2.89 a roll).

Also with Diafine: when in doubt overexpose.

Best of luck.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
Larry,

What is Rondinax? Also in what context would it fit with Diafine.

<snip>

Cal
Click to expand...

Sorry, I guess it does sound like a chemical. Rondinax=Leica accessory TEOOH, daylight processing tank, with a twist, literally.

this link explains it better than I could:
http://aperturepriority.co.nz/2012/02/23/agfa-rondinax-35-u/

The only knock on these is that it is hard to maintain an exact temp for extended developing times. Hence, my comment about using it with Diafine.

Thanks again for the additional tips. All are helpful.

Best,
Larry
 
Trius said:
Rondinax is a developing tank and reel system that featured daylight loading. They are long out of production, so only available used.


https://rondinax.wordpress.com
Click to expand...

Used, that's okay. We do a lot of that here. Asking price can often be unreasonably stiff, but two figure bargains can be had now and than. Well worth it at that price level, IMO.
 
GarageBoy said:
Cal, what was the reasoning for the 7+4 times?
Also, what IS the difference between Diafine and Acufine?
Click to expand...

G-B

7+4 are the times I adopted from DRabbit (from RFF) for Tri-X at 1000-1250. This is a true push with a noticable grain. I found the results to be comparable or even better than "Diafine-Times-Two" and easier to do without the dangers of killing my part "A." Results are kinda like CoCal's shot/example in this thread, except CoCal used HC-110 in a masterful way.

My 3+3 for Tri-X 800 ISO used with a 2X yellow filter is for HDR analog, almost no grain, and a broad tonal range. Effectively 400 ISO when you compensate for filter factor.

My 5 1/2+ 5 1/2 is for Acros at 100 ISO and no grain (no filters).

All developments are only two gentile inversions per minute.

Diafine is a two part compensating developer that gets reused. Understand that compensating developers compress contrast, and the way they work is very different from solvent developers.

Acufine is a one shot solvent developer that is a bit like Ilford Microphen in that it is high energy and manages grain size well. For great examples of Acufine and Tri-X look at Jim Marshall's work. Jim made a career out of this combination shooting all those iconic shots of the Rolling Stones on tour in the 70's, Allman Brothers "Filmore East"... If my memory is correct Jim shot Tri-X at 800 ISO and developed for 5 3/4 minutes using Acufine at 20 degrees C. As far as I know that is what he did for his whole career: one film; one developer. He really nailed it. I saw his vintage prints at a gallery in NYC's photo district. Kinda fine grained prints. Anyways you can tell I love his work. Jim shot a M4 and a 75 Lux a lot which was one of his magic combinations. Jim was like me: he protected the mids, but his images had contrast that popped.

Perhaps the only thing in common is the fine grain or control of grain size. Maybe also because the are good at a gentile push. In reality I don't need more than 800 ISO, and if I exceed 800 ISO IQ suffers. Know that I like to print big because big prints don't lie.

Anyways I think Jim Marshall can teach you a lot by just trying to pick one film and one developer and really learning how to master it into your own style. For instance you could do HC-110 as your developer, but use a lifetime to find out what it can really do.

I did this with Diafine and I really learned a lot and became a better photographer. With Diafine I really made it work for me, but the first thing I did is throw away the directions because the recommended film speeds seem way too aggressive. I learned the limits, and then I controlled them to come up with something fresh and new.

Cal
 
Cal,
For 120, I'm currently using HP5+ (shadow metered @320) with Ilfosol 3 for 5:45. It works like a charm and I love the negatives, scans, and prints I'm getting right now, but I do like the idea of standardizing on a single developer for all my B&W film since I use Diafine and Acros/Tri-X in 35mm. Do you use Diafine for medium format, and if so, are you using the same shooting/development regime?

Thanks,
Alan
 
huddy said:
Cal,
For 120, I'm currently using HP5+ (shadow metered @320) with Ilfosol 3 for 5:45. It works like a charm and I love the negatives, scans, and prints I'm getting right now, but I do like the idea of standardizing on a single developer for all my B&W film since I use Diafine and Acros/Tri-X in 35mm. Do you use Diafine for medium format, and if so, are you using the same shooting/development regime?

Thanks,
Alan
Click to expand...

Alan,

I do both 135 and 120 in a mixed tank (meaning both at the same time. Know that I use a SS 8 reel tank, but with old Diafine I found that I have to be careful of foam on the top reel. Use to do 4 rolls of 120 with a 135 on the top, but with the eventual foaming I stopped this practice.

Remember one summer I was developing 150 rolls a month on average.

Also know that I feel the big tank adds to consistency.

Cal
 
Cal,
Thanks for the quick reply. I currently have two Paterson plastic tanks (2/1 and 5/3, sizes in 35/120). I initially bought a 1 quart kit to try out so hopefully once my yellow filter arrives in another week or so, I can give a couple of rolls a run.

I'm afraid I'm never going to shoot 150 rolls per month with a wife and 3 children and tow while working 60-70 hour weeks, but I love the idea of being able to shoot 4-8 rolls per month of mixed formats/speeds by standardizing the development routine.

One more question, does your stainless tank allow relatively quick pour/empty of chemicals? My fill/empty times on the Paterson tank were about 20-30 second which isn't insignificant for 5:45 development times and I'm concerned that 1 or 2 negatives got damaged by that.

Thanks,
Alan
 
huddy said:
Cal,
Thanks for the quick reply. I currently have two Paterson plastic tanks (2/1 and 5/3, sizes in 35/120). I initially bought a 1 quart kit to try out so hopefully once my yellow filter arrives in another week or so, I can give a couple of rolls a run.

I'm afraid I'm never going to shoot 150 rolls per month with a wife and 3 children and tow while working 60-70 hour weeks, but I love the idea of being able to shoot 4-8 rolls per month of mixed formats/speeds by standardizing the development routine.

One more question, does your stainless tank allow relatively quick pour/empty of chemicals? My fill/empty times on the Paterson tank were about 20-30 second which isn't insignificant for 5:45 development times and I'm concerned that 1 or 2 negatives got damaged by that.

Thanks,
Alan
Click to expand...

Alan,

You are correct that the development times are short and pouring and filling times are somewhat signifigant.

What I do is I try to pour and drain as fast as I can to minimize variation and to strive for consistency. Anyways my SS tanks take about 40 seconds to either fill or empty, but that is 2 liters of developer. Anyways I get consistent results which is important.

Note that the results are very much like Cocal's examples, meaning a full range of tone on the negative with a HDR like effect (extended tonal range and mucho detail). You cannot see it on a computer screen, but know that there is a lot of shadow detail than a CRT can show.

Cal
 
My next roll is loaded for shooting at 1250 (almost 1600). Thanks Cal for all the tips on TX+Diafine. I just got my first two rolls (mix of 800+400 w/filter) developed a few days back and scanned one in tonight with my Pakon. Grain looks nice and reasonable and the combo with the new 35 Ultron sings. Only negative is that I got a bit of streaking from the sprocket holes that needs to be sorted out. Going to post three obligatory shots here as a thank you:





 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WJJ3
Developer for old Delta 400
Replies
4
Views
1K
WJJ3
WJJ3
F
T-Max 100 in Rodinal - Shoot/Dev at Box Speed or Shoot + 1 stop push in development?
Replies
15
Views
1K
OmegaB600
O
D
choosing editing software for scans
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Tom R
T
A
My Leica SL2-S settings
Replies
0
Views
929
Archiver
A
J
  • Featured
  • Article Article
What's happening with Photographic Film in 2025? Is this robust niche still growing?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
6K
wlewisiii
W
Back
Top Bottom