Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,600   Posts: 1,622,394   Online: 809
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    brian steinberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    2,480
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    100
    I regularly push Tri-x and HP5 up to one stop in flat overcast light. HP5 I push to EI 640 and develop in ID-11 (D-76) 1:1 for 16 minutes. Tri-x gets pushed to EI 500 in ID-11 1:1 for 13 minutes. I would recommend using Xtol at 1:1 if that's what you have on hand. That will give you better shadow detail than most developers, especially Rodinal. Shoot at EI 800 and develop for the 1600 dev time. That will be a good starting point.

  2. #12
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,842
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by theoria View Post
    So, which developer (and dilution) among those listed would work better for developing HP5/Tri-X at 1600 and 3200 (in order to get less contrast and a grain that is not too coarse)?
    XTOL is a fine choice.

    Contrast is controlled by development, more development=more contrast and more visible grain.

    Given that you don't want more contrast I'm wondering why you are considering a push.

    In XTOL I'd even say that you could shoot as high as 800 and still get very usable negatives. You may not even notice a loss.

    Kodak's tech pub even says to develop Tri-X in the standard manner for 400 and 800.

    Bottom line is that you are going to need to experiment some to figure this out.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    776
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Bottom line is that you are going to need to experiment some to figure this out.
    ...and as mark stated before, exposure controls density, developing controls contrast. If you're shooting flat light, it's best that you still shoot at 400 and develop at 800 if you want the shadow detail. Shooting some film that is rated at 1600 is not a bad idea either. Bottom line still applies though. My recommendation would be shoot some short rolls and run some developing tests to see what you like. Sure you might "waste" some money and time, but it's way better than spending a day shooting a realizing that your exposure or developing time was off.

  4. #14
    Colin Corneau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brandon, MB
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,786
    Images
    344
    I've pushed film a lot (400 B&W to 800 or 1600) and have come to really like DD-X for its grain and shadow detail.

    Since you're shooting street, I'm guessing you are concerned less with densitometry charts and more with getting the shot. My take is that you won't really see a huge loss in shadow detail with careful development AND shooting in flat light. That last point is key.
    "Never criticize someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That way, you're a mile away and you've got their shoes."

    MY BLOG - www.reservedatalltimes.com
    YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THIS SITE - www.colincorneau.com
    INSTAGRAM: colincorneau

  5. #15
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,842
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by jordanstarr View Post
    ...and as mark stated before, exposure controls density, ...
    Minor point of clarification.

    It might be easier to think of exposure as controlling placement, rather than density.

    Exposure places the shadow point on film quite specifically, at least within a small range, but density above the shadow point is a significant variable based on a combination of both exposure and choices in the development.

    If the development process is fixed and not varied then it can be said that exposure controls density directly. C-41 is a great example of this.

    I actually find that I prefer having a fixed development regime where I understand the limits for a given combo and will simply meter/shoot/expose within those limits, say -1 (800) to +2 (100) for Tri-X, or whatever range I have tested for.

    These are purely my personal limits. I have simply decided that I prefer to adjust for print contrast at the enlarger/paper instead of in the development of the film.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  6. #16
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,842
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    +1 on DD-X
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  7. #17
    PDH
    PDH is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    584
    When I was working JP in the 70s and 80s I pushed a lot of 35mm Tx. The lab used Fr chemistry in a Verisamat or developed in a tank with HC 110, if I developed in the feild I used Dinafine or Acufine. I do like HC 110 for a push due to low fog. Advantage of Dinafine is good grain and shadow details but needs to printed at higher contrast. Tmax 400 or 3200 will push well in TMAX or HC 110. I also like Tmax 400 pushed to 1600 and developed in Edwal 12, higher contrast but nice gain. I have also used Edwal FG 7 with sulfite added. When pushing by extending the time in the developer expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may. I have not used D76 for pushing, Rodinal will likley lead to increased fog and grain.

  8. #18
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,720
    Images
    291
    Your 'normal' exposure index of a film becomes an over-exposure or under-exposure in lighting conditions other than 'normal'.

    If it's foggy, for example, or heavily overcast, you usually have much less contrast in the scene. This means you can expose your film at a higher exposure index than 'normal' and still retain full detail, because the brightness in the scene is compressed. By underexposing you stretch the shadows back down towards the toe of the film curve, and then you over-develop the film, to stretch the highlights up the curve to make a negative of 'normal' contrast.
    I would not call that push processing. I would call it underexposure and over-developing for normal contrast. Push processing usually involves photographing in very low light where you don't have enough film speed to record the whole tonal range, so you sacrifice shadow detail in order to get the rest of the tonal range back into their normal places. The shadow detail is the main distinction here. In low contrast photography you don't push process, you just compensate for the low contrast of the light you're photographing.

    If you have very bright late afternoon sun, with super bright highlights, and very long deep shadows, to generate a 'normal' negative, you would have to give plenty of exposure to record what's in those deeeep shadows, and then to avoid blocking up the highlights you process for less amount of time. This is also a way to create a normal contrast negative, and in my mind pretty standard practice in making sure I have printable negatives that don't break my heart at printing time.

    Knowing what to expect is key, in my book. So underexposure in low contrast weather can be as much as two stops to yield a normal negative. Over-exposure in extreme contrast can be as much as two or three stops, just to capture all that shadow detail. To me that is just a variation of 'normal', because that's what I aim for the negative to be.

    With that said, you will find people (myself included) who think that an ISO 400 film like T-Max 400 looks best shot at 1600 in normal lighting conditions, just because we're not terribly concerned with shadow detail, and may actually prefer that there is NOT shadow detail all over the place. That is a personal choice, according to preference and taste, and nobody can argue that this is wrong either. The point is that you do with your negatives what looks good in the prints. Shoot a roll and bracket your exposures, see where you get 'enough' shadow detail to satisfy your taste. Then adjust developing time until the rest of the tonal range looks right.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #19
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,503
    If 1-2 stops will do it, try Tri-X in Diafine. The box lists EI 1600 and this used to be very workable, but I wonder if changes to Tri-X have changed this as now I find it a bit thin. EI 1000-1250 still looks very good, though. I haven't tried HP5+ in Diafine in years but it used to get a good EI 800.

    If you need more than EI 1250 or so, you may be better off going to TMZ or Delta 3200, but as Thomas talks about it depends on how much shadow detail you want. Those films will hold shadow detail better than pushing 400 speed films beyond a stop or two, but at the expense of grain. Tri-X in Diafine will make very nice 8x10s from 35mm.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    189
    Images
    22
    I love TX400 exposed and developed as ISO 800 in Rodinal. But I do like grain and I don't care if I loose some shadow detail.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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