TriX at ISO1600 Developer Recommendations?

[kiemchacsu]

I use Tmax developer. One can push very well with this developer.
It does not exhaust easily so you can really dig in with it.
Highlight detail can be lost with too much agitation.
Keep in mind the scene as shot. If you have highlight detail you are concerned about protecting reduce agitation from normal when pushing.

I mix Tmax Develooper 1:4 and soup up at 20c.
Cheers!

I have to agree.

With developers I've tried includes T-max, HC-110, Rodinal, D-76:
T-max is the best one for push processing.

 

[ktmrider]

Thanks for the replies. It seems not much has changed in 40 years.

I am on the downhill leg of a 90 day trip to Europe and due to space/weight limitations, all I brought is the M9. Am already planning my next trip (motorcycling in SE Asia again) and thinking M2 and/or M9.

 

[Rob-F]

Microphen is great for this. I use it for either HP5 or Tri-X when I shoot faster than box speed. All the shots for my letterpress documentary project were done with Tri-X @ 1600 in Microphen (mostly with a Rolleiflex Automat): http://johnlabovitz.com/projects/letterpress

+ 1. I will turn to Microphen as my best shadow speed increase developer. But with that said, a lot depends on how much shadow speed you really need to make the shot work. Some of the best low-light shots I've ever seen or done, have enough important areas, the ones that tell the story, adequately lit, and the shadows don't matter. I learned that by watching cinema noir movies! They put the light just where it belongs. We still street photographers don't get that privilege!

But I digress. I will also mention D-DX and TMax as good for coaxing the most out of a negative. I don't think of XTOL as a push developer, yet I do like the full-bodied images I get with it in shots where the light is on the low side, like a well lit street at twilight.

edit: I should add, for me "pushing" is really about preserving some shadow speed. Otherwise, I think it's just about setting the meter to a higher speed, pretending that that will increase the actual film speed, but really throwing away the shadows and boosting contrast through the roof.

 

[Calzone]

I have to agree that digital rules; 3200-6400 is nothing today.

But I persist with film for many reason, and like the pictures I get. The developers you mention are still my favorites for this, Acufine and Diafine. Unlike a lot of people, I don't seem to get anything remotely like a usable EI 1600 out of standard development in Diafine today; I run it through the process two times and then do get a result that works well for me in the 1600-3200 range. That is A, B, very thorough rinse, A, B, then finish as usual. This may be due to changes in the films over the years. Both TX and HP5 Plus work well for me this way.

That is mostly what I've done so far since I know it will work, but I think I may end up preferring Acufine. I'm experimenting now to see what I can get out of TX and HP5 Plus in Acufine.

Of course an awful lot depends on what you are trying to do. You are obviously not going to get the equivalent of ISO 1600 shadow exposure, but I've been able to get usable pictures at the edge of what I can do with 1600-3200 exposures. Other people want the high contrast, or grainy, pushed look and might want to go a completely different route.

Mark,

I tried Diafine-Times-Two and liked the results, but I found that Diafine 4+7 with Tri-X gave me a nice mid range at 1250 ISO.

I minimize aggitation to only two inversions per minute to minimize grain size, but I think more film speed is available by just increasing adding another inversion to add development without adding more time. Perhaps 1600 ISO with three inversions, but at the cost of less midrange, higher contrast, and more grain. By minimizing aggitation I am promoting the contrast compression of Diafine's compensating effect making my development more stand like at the cost of some film speed.

1250 ISO is all the film speed I need to shoot medium format handheld at night with a leaf shutter with a F3.5 lens wide open.

With Acufine I only do what Jim Marshall did: Tri-X at 800 ISO and Acufine for 5 3/4 min at 20 degrees C.

Cal

 

[Mark C]

Mark,

I tried Diafine-Times-Two and liked the results, but I found that Diafine 4+7 with Tri-X gave me a nice mid range at 1250 ISO.

I minimize aggitation to only two inversions per minute to minimize grain size, but I think more film speed is available by just increasing adding another inversion to add development without adding more time. Perhaps 1600 ISO with three inversions, but at the cost of less midrange, higher contrast, and more grain. By minimizing aggitation I am promoting the contrast compression of Diafine's compensating effect making my development more stand like at the cost of some film speed.

1250 ISO is all the film speed I need to shoot medium format handheld at night with a leaf shutter with a F3.5 lens wide open.

With Acufine I only do what Jim Marshall did: Tri-X at 800 ISO and Acufine for 5 3/4 min at 20 degrees C.

Cal

It is interesting you commented right now. I'd even forgotten about posting here, but had on my agenda for today to compare Acufine and Diafine. I'll probably test Kentmere 100 for now since it is cheap and I use a lot of it. I've gotten good results with it in both developers, but never done a direct comparison.

Your Diafine 4+7 means 4 minutes in A and 7 minutes in B? Have you done controlled tests (same roll and image) to confirm that extending the B time does give more development? Conventional wisdom is that time makes little difference, especially in B. If time matters (beyond the minimum recommended), then temp should also. What temp do you use? I have been doing 4' A and 4' B and keeping the temp up around 75F to make sure the Phenidone is fully active. I think 70F is okay, but I settled on this during the summer months and hesitate to make unnecessary changes.

I first used "Diafine" 2x in desperation when I ran out of light at an event last spring. This was actually a home brew Diafine substitute since I couldn't get the real thing in a reasonable time due to store holiday closings. I've since done it with real Diafine and get a significant gain, but feel it really is a desperation move to get something like a useable 1600 on TX. Also 400 on Kentmere 100 when I somehow got to an event without TX.

 

[Calzone]

It is interesting you commented right now. I'd even forgotten about posting here, but had on my agenda for today to compare Acufine and Diafine. I'll probably test Kentmere 100 for now since it is cheap and I use a lot of it. I've gotten good results with it in both developers, but never done a direct comparison.

Your Diafine 4+7 means 4 minutes in A and 7 minutes in B? Have you done controlled tests (same roll and image) to confirm that extending the B time does give more development? Conventional wisdom is that time makes little difference, especially in B. If time matters (beyond the minimum recommended), then temp should also. What temp do you use? I have been doing 4' A and 4' B and keeping the temp up around 75F to make sure the Phenidone is fully active. I think 70F is okay, but I settled on this during the summer months and hesitate to make unnecessary changes.

I first used "Diafine" 2x in desperation when I ran out of light at an event last spring. This was actually a home brew Diafine substitute since I couldn't get the real thing in a reasonable time due to store holiday closings. I've since done it with real Diafine and get a significant gain, but feel it really is a desperation move to get something like a useable 1600 on TX. Also 400 on Kentmere 100 when I somehow got to an event without TX.

Mark,

You are correct: soak in part "A" for 4 minutes, and part "B" for 7 minutes. That is for 1000-1250 ISO for a denser negative for wet printing. No thin negatives for scanning for me. I found Diafine to be Panthermic and do not regulate temperature, except that I make sure my Diafine is at over 20 degrees C or 68 degrees F.

What I did find is that Diafine is very sensitive to aggitation and for me the least amount was the best for finest grain and most extended midrange. The contrast range I get is a combination of exposure and development, and because I try to maximize Diafine's compensating effect of contrast compression (my goal is kinda like the contrast range of Tri-X shot at 400 ISO developed in D-76 stock, even though the film speed is pushed) I maximize for midrange. Why aggitate more unless you want more film speed and contrast?

I tried Diafine 4+7 due to an impressive shot posted by Amy (DrRabbit) here on RFF. I tried 4+7 with HP5 but found the grain to be more than Tri-X and I like the tonality better of Tri-X. I also kinda somewhat used the idea of stand development to minimize the grain and to get the long tonal scale I wanted. Diafine 4+7 is also a lot less work than Diafine-Times-Two, and without the danger of killing your part "A."

As far as Acufine I think Jim Marshall did it right: Tri-X 800 ISO Acufine 5 3/4 minutes at 20 degrees C. Acufine is a solvent developer and not a compensating developer like Diafine. Although fine grain expect different results with a somewhat similar look. I like the extended tonal range of Diafine that I get, I like that I reuse the developer with Diafine, and most of all I like the cost savings. Other than the cost of film, once I mix up a batch of Diafine, the actual cost of developing a roll of film is a few pennies worth of fixer.

Also know that I started using Diafine because mixing 20 liters batches of ID-11 every month became costly because I shot a lot of film (still do, but now I own a Monochrom). I decided to figure out how to make Diafine work for me. I discovered that the rated film speed was way too aggressive, especially if you are trying to make negatives for straight wet printing, and I found mucho bad information on the internet.

In the end I shot Acros at box speed (100 ISO) and developed in Diafine 5 3/4+ 5 3/4 with only two inversions per minute for grain free contrasty negatives that I could straight print onto a grade 2 paper (no contrast filters).

With Tri-X it got tricky because initially I got mixed results because with Tri-X the lighting contrast initially must be very high because Diafine otherwise would make thin negatives. I found the solution is to blast the contrast with a 2X yellow filter. I rated Tri-X at 800, but because of the 2X filter effectively I was shooting Tri-X at box speed. With only two aggitations per minute for 3.5+3.5 I got very fine grain negatives where I had to use a light table and an 8x loupe to A-B Acros and Tri-X negatives to see that the Tri-X had slightly more grain.

Anyways my approach is a lot like shooting large format, even though I'm only shooting small format and medium format: I'm trying to make negatives that have highlights that are not blown (expoiting Diafine's compentating effect), have enhanced shadow detail (Diafine's extended tonality), and fine grain by minimizing aggitation and exploiting Diafine's fast development.

Also understand tha I find that Diafine gets better with use as traces of part "A" contaminate part "B" (after about 25-30 rolls). The midrange gets noticibly richer with less percieved contrast. Realize that at my peak I was developing about 150 rolls a month during one summer before I bought my Monochrom. Now I intend on shooting mucho 120 in 6x9 at 1250 ISO to more fully utilize my medium format cameras. I figure the added noticible grain at 1250 ISO will not be pronounced on a big negative.

As far as films: Acros at 100 ISO- 5 3/4=5 3/4; Tri-X at 800 ISO with a 2X yellow filter (effectively 400 ISO) Diafine 3+3; and Tri-X 1250 ISO Diafine 4+7. All the above with Diafine temperature above 20 degrees C and only two inversions per minute in a two liter stainless steel tank. IMHO the gentiler the inversions the better. One test roll of Kodak 5222 indicates great possibilities. By mistake I shot the 5222 at 800 ISO so I developed 4+7 in Diafine. I was impressed, but I think 5222 will be great at 400 or 500 without any filters, and this might become my main film for 135.

A friend of mine who I respect that shoots large format once made a comment about some of my 6x9 negatives, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5."

Cal

 

[kossi008]

Xtol 1+1.
Works like a charm.

Like I've said elsewhere: Xtol stock works even better. Well, it does give you finer grain at least.

 

[Tijmendal]

XTol 1:1 is great.