Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,058   Posts: 1,561,575   Online: 659
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    284

    2 recipes for pushing tri-x to 1600 in rodinal, need help choosing one

    Hello,

    I recently shot a roll of Tri-X 400 at an EI of 1600 and have found two recipes for developing it in Rodinal. I know this can be a sensitive subject on this forum since people don't believe Rodinal is suitable for pushing, but I was wondering what recipe would get me more favorable results?

    Recipe 1 (semi-stand):
    -1+100 dilution Rodinal (20C)
    -90 min development time
    -invert for first minute, 3 inversions at the 30 minute mark, 3 inversions at the 60 minute mark

    Recipe 2:
    -1+50 dilution Rodinal (20C)
    -18:30 development time
    -Agitate 30 seconds initially then 2 inversions every 2 minutes

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,018
    Kodak recommends that if you wish to push 400TX (Tri-X) you use HC-110. Look at their website for this film for instructions. Rodinal will produce less than optimal results such as an increase in grain and excessive loss of shadow detail. Bur then Kodak doesn't know anything about their films but some twit on APUG does. I assume you got your information from APUG. They are the twit I was referring to not the OP of this thread.

    Check the following site for information on HC-110 and 400TX, http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 07-28-2013 at 01:10 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    323
    I've never saw much reason for stand development but figured I'd try it, just to say I've done it. I was absolutely amazed by the results. Relatively fine grain, and very impressive tonal range. And we're talking about Tri-X pushed to 1600. This is the procedure I followed which I saw on RFF:

    1) Several minute water bath.
    2) Rodinal at 1+100.
    3) Temperature not important, unless very cool or very warm.
    4) Pour in developer and vey slowly invert the tank, e.g. about 20 inversions in 60 seconds.
    5) 120 minute total development time,
    6) Every 30 minutes slowly swirl the tank (no inversions) for 15 seconds.
    7) Pour out developer and give three water baths
    8) Fix and wash as normal.

    It worked for me, and I gotta say that I was impressed with the results. I will be using stand development more in the future.

    Jim B.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    284
    Gerald, I understand Kodak recommends HC-110 but this is more of an experiment I'm doing to see how my Tri-X will do in Rodinal. I've tried pushing Tri-X in Microphen as well and liked the results. Going to try HC-110 after this push in Rodinal .

    Jim, thank you very much for the response. I know this is probably a moot point since pre-wash time isn't a HUGE deal but by several minutes do you think ~3 min should do?

  5. #5
    keyofnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    86
    Whenever I push Tri-X, I stand develop in Rodinal 1+100. Honestly, I only ever stand develop these days. It works, it has always been consistent for me over the last entire year, and I really like the results I've gotten. What matters the most is what kind of process you like to use and whether you like the results.

    I get really good shadow detail in good light, and I don't get that much grain (compared to other people's stuff posted online, at least).

    Here's a couple examples:




    The first was developed for 1'40" with no agitations, and the second for 1'30" with a single agitation halfway.

    A ~3" prewash sounds fine to me. I prewash/soak for way longer than necessary—usually 5-10 minutes. This is usually accidental. lol.

    The devil is in the details, though, so here are a few tips. First, keep your water cool/cold if possible. I've read this helps with grain size, but I'm not sure about that. Second, be careful with the agitations. If you agitate one too many times, you'll lose that compensation effect.

    Hey Gerald, why so upset? Why call anyone a "twit" at all ever? We're just trying to have fun with chemicals and film. :/

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,658
    There's a difference between underexposing and pushing, isn't there - although the terms seem to be often conflated.

    Stand development isn't a "push" though, surely?

    One of the effects of stand development is to reduce overall contrast, whereas the whole point of a push process is to increase contrast in an otherwise underexposed negative. Or have I grossly misunderstood something basic here?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    323
    Quote Originally Posted by tron_ View Post
    .......Jim, thank you very much for the response. I know this is probably a moot point since pre-wash time isn't a HUGE deal but by several minutes do you think ~3 min should do?
    Three minutes should be fine. The idea is to pre-wet the film so absolute time, be it three minutes or five minutes, probably isn't all that important.

    Jim B.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,901
    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    There's a difference between underexposing and pushing, isn't there - although the terms seem to be often conflated.

    Stand development isn't a "push" though, surely?

    One of the effects of stand development is to reduce overall contrast, whereas the whole point of a push process is to increase contrast in an otherwise underexposed negative. Or have I grossly misunderstood something basic here?
    Pushing is simply underexposure combined with some method of development intended to bring out whatever shadow detail was recorded (ie maximize film speed).

    The simple push method is to extend development time. The problem is this also increases contrast. So various techniques are attempts at maximizing shadow development while holding back highlight development somewhat. This is often referred to as "compensating" development. There are different ways of doing this, some more successful than others, and regardless of how many experts you hear from, compensating development is not very well understood. One procedure aimed at compensation is stand development or semi-stand development. The idea behind it is "controlled" local developer exhaustion taken to its extreme. Since there is little agitation, the developer is expected to exhaust in heavily exposed areas while it continues to work in areas of low exposure (shadows). What is not well understood is how important both the film emulsion and the developer formulation are in determining how much compensation you actually get. Often there is significantly less than expected (although people still see what they want to see). Further, compensation does not necessarily imply film speed is maximized. You need the right developer.

    Also, while I won't beat the proverbial dead horse regarding the risks associated with stand development, I still think it is important to do proper testing for uniformity. Usually the examples people post (aside from being high in contrast with poor shadow detail) are fairly "busy" images in which uneven development might not be immediately visible. But as with any extreme development technique, tests with more uniform, featureless tonalities should be done to ensure you don't end up with unexpected problems at some point.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,658
    Beautifully clear and concise - thank you Michael

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Kodak recommends that if you wish to push 400TX (Tri-X) you use HC-110. Bur then Kodak doesn't know anything about their films but some twit on APUG does.
    But then Kodak has to sell his Hc-110...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin