Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,560   Posts: 1,545,256   Online: 808
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132

    Charybdis and Scylla: Tri-X @ EI3200 and D-76

    Kodak's documentation on pushing 35mm Tri-X (400TX) with D-76 goes only until EI 1600, so I was checking the MDV for EI 3200 @ 20C, and it gave me :

    11 mins for full strength
    16 mins for 1+1.

    On their push processing rubrique, they recommend a 4.5x increase in dev time for a 3 stop push.

    Based on Kodak's litterature, that would give me:

    4.5 x 8 mins = 36 mins (full strength)
    4.5 x 10 mins = 40 mins (1+1)

    I believe the truth lies midway; I am also sure that some of my shots may be underexposed by at most one stop, but as this is the first time that I'm pushing film, I don't care if I ruin something.

    Any suggestion?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    My old rule of thumb was increase development 50% for each push, so 400 to 800 is 12, 800 to 1600 is 18 and to 3200 is 27. I would cut the roll in half and develop 1/2 at 27 and the other 1/2 at 36 to get in the ball park. If you intend to push a lot I would consider Acufine.

    Paul

  3. #3
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    I'm with Paul. With HC-110, on conventional grain films, I find that 50% increase is about a one stop push, though with many films there's an upper limit, where development has gone to completion and you simply can't get anything more no matter how much you develop. Tri-X at 3200 is, um, "pushing" things a little, but I'd be inclined to use 3x the original development time (but then, with HC-110, I'd follow that by switching from Dilution B to G, tripling the time again, and cutting agitation by 2/3).

    I haven't tried Tri-X at that level, though -- I have no cameras that can shoot that speed in daylight, and don't often want/need to shoot a whole roll indoors or at night.
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  4. #4
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    After some more Net research, I saw a good number of people developing it in Rodinal, saying it was well adapted to low-light settings. Most of my frame were shot at night with light from the street or the shop fronts.

  5. #5
    kaiyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    bay area, california
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    331
    Images
    4
    I got better results at _1600_ with Rodinal 1+50 for 24:00 with 10s agitation every 3 mins than I did with Microphen 1+0 for 16:00 with 1 inversion every 3 minutes. I have to do more direct testing, and I intend to do some tests at 3200 and 6400, but it's something to consider. More dilute, less agitation.

    allan

  6. #6
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by kaiyen
    I got better results at _1600_ with Rodinal 1+50 for 24:00 with 10s agitation every 3 mins than I did with Microphen 1+0 for 16:00 with 1 inversion every 3 minutes. I have to do more direct testing, and I intend to do some tests at 3200 and 6400, but it's something to consider. More dilute, less agitation.

    allan
    What's the impact of reduced agitation on dilute developers? In my ordinary development, I do 3-4 agitations every 30secs (Rodinal 1+25, D76 1+1). In the case of pushed film exposed in low light situations, is a dilute developer more important?

    Geez, so many variables, and I haven't souped the negatives yet...

  7. #7
    kaiyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    bay area, california
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    331
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by mhv
    What's the impact of reduced agitation on dilute developers? In my ordinary development, I do 3-4 agitations every 30secs (Rodinal 1+25, D76 1+1). In the case of pushed film exposed in low light situations, is a dilute developer more important?

    Geez, so many variables, and I haven't souped the negatives yet...
    Reduced agitation allows for development to continue in the shadows while the developer exhausts in the highlights. So you can get a bit more speed out of the film while controlling highlights.

    A&T recommends doing this with developers dilute enough where the recommended time (for normal agitation) is 12 minutes or more. then increase that time by 50%.

    Keep in mind that there are really two types of low light situations. In a room that is mostly dark but with just a few bright lights - think stage situations at a concert or play - the lighting is actually very contrasty. You have deep blacks with relatively intense highlights. You'd actually want a low-contrast film designed for pushing, like Delta 3200.

    However, if you're in a truly dim situation, where everything is roughly the same, low light, then using a contrastier film pushed harder often adds the needed snap. I often use Tri-X for this, at 1600 or 3200.

    Since you've given up most hope on shadow detail right off the bat, what you care about is controlling highlights enough to print, while getting enough development to get your midtones to the right general area. It is easier to do this with a dilute developer.

    allan

  8. #8
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by kaiyen

    (snip)

    Since you've given up most hope on shadow detail right off the bat, what you care about is controlling highlights enough to print, while getting enough development to get your midtones to the right general area. It is easier to do this with a dilute developer.

    allan

    I've found someone who used 1+50 Rodinal in dim daylight and his results look very nice : http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=00CR99

    In my case I will have more contrasty subjects, and instances of pure blacks, so I'm split between trying Rodinal 1+50 or D-76 1+1. I'm looking mainly for some details in highlights, and not a full black/full white look. Grain could be cool.

  9. #9
    kaiyen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    bay area, california
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    331
    Images
    4
    Well, if you read Jon Painter's comment on there it's pretty relevant - there is actually pretty decent lighting in those examples. The DOF is pretty good, so the lens wasn't at 1.7, etc...

    I think you're better off with Rodinal in either case. Since it's a non-solvent developer, you can utilize compensation to keep things under control.

    Best bet, either way, is to experiment. I'll be shooting a few rolls of TXT at nothing in particular this weekend exactly for that purpose...

    allan

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,055
    FWIW, I do Tri-X in Acufine 1+1, 70F for 21 minutes. Negs look good.

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