TriX at 1600 & 3200

huddy said:
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:





Click to expand...

Alan,

It takes about 25 rolls, but know that Diafine gets "seasoned" where the part "B" gets slightly contaminated with residual part "A." Know that seasoned Diafine delivers smoother contrast and mucho mids.

The best negatives are yet to come.

Also about exposure: when in doubt overexpose, otherwise thin negatives result.

Cal
 
Great, great shots in this thread!!

My lab used to use Microphen whenever i requested a push for HP5 to 1600. It worked perfectly well, so good that i started telling everybody that HP5 is really "a 1600 ISO film" (it isn't true, but it worked so good...)

Tri-X should also work perfectly with Microphen.
 
presspass said:
There is an older article - I don't remember where I saw it - about pushing Tri-X to 3200 and beyond. The author tried a number of developers, including some really odd super-soup combinations.
Click to expand...

Google "pushing tri-x to 12800" and "super soup". It is a great article.
 
Calzone said:
It takes about 25 rolls, but know that Diafine gets "seasoned" where the part "B" gets slightly contaminated with residual part "A." Know that seasoned Diafine delivers smoother contrast and mucho mids.
Click to expand...

The look of well-used Diafine is due to halide buildup in the A bath, not contamination of the B bath. You can figure this out by testing well used A bath with fresh B bath. But the well-used Diafine look is a very nice look.

Calzone said:
The best negatives are yet to come.

Also about exposure: when in doubt overexpose, otherwise thin negatives result.
Click to expand...

Agree, on both counts.

Marty
 
I've heard good things for Tri-X with Acufine/Diafine.

You're going to want to at the least use a developer meant for push processing...I've had very good luck with Ilford's DD-X - with both HP5+ and Tri-X. 1600 should be easily done for either film, long as you use a suitable developer.
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
Beautiful. I will look at this combo and timing as well. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Thank you!
I was rather impresed as well, as I expected very grainy and contrasty negatives.
I must say that I'm very glad about the overall rendering.

Hatchetman said:
13Promet - those photos are very impressive. Shot at f1.4, what shutter speed?
Click to expand...

Thank you too!
Sorry, f/1.4 is the lenses max aperture.
Both shots are @ f/2-2.8 (don't remember exactly)
Shutter speed is 1/60'' IIRC.

Calzone said:
HC-110 is a developer I want to try. Seems like many possibilities.

Cal
Click to expand...

It's my first bottle of it, and I love it!
It suits perfectly my needs both for low and high speed films and I love the way it renders tones and grain.
Moreover, the cost per dev. is ridiculously low, it lasts forever and no powders to mix.
I short, I'd say it's a fantastic allrounder: I don't thnk that I'm going to try anything else!
 
Freakscene said:
The look of well-used Diafine is due to halide buildup in the A bath, not contamination of the B bath. You can figure this out by testing well used A bath with fresh B bath. But the well-used Diafine look is a very nice look.



Agree, on both counts.

Marty
Click to expand...

Marty,

Thanks for sharing this info.

Seasoned Diafine is so smooth. Love the enhanced vast mids. This is where 135 looks like 120, and 120 looks like 4x5.

Cal
 
13Promet said:
Thank you!


It's my first bottle of it, and I love it!
It suits perfectly my needs both for low and high speed films and I love the way it renders tones and grain.
Moreover, the cost per dev. is ridiculously low, it lasts forever and no powders to mix.
I short, I'd say it's a fantastic allrounder: I don't thnk that I'm going to try anything else!
Click to expand...

13,

It seems to be a very flexible developer and like you said, "An all-rounder."

It seems one of the keys to minimizing grain is to use strong developers and short times. HC-110 offers a lot of strength. Being a liquid also makes it easier, especially if one developes lots of film.

Microphen is another high energy developer, Acufine is strong and has very short times, and Diafine also has short times.

Minimizing aggitation not only provides a compensating effect (although times may have to be extended), but minimizing aggitation also seems to minimize grain size.

Jim Marshall's prints using Accufine and Tri-X at 800 ISO look very much like normal 400 ISO development as far as range of contrast.

Cal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom