Tri-X exposed a 1600ASA ( Diafine best agitation method)

[Rorystreet91]

I exposed a roll of Tri-X at 1600 indoors with mid window lighting, it seems that Diafine is one the best choice for pushing to 1600 and still get some decent printable negatives, but I've read many alternatives about how to agitate.
If you agitate too much you wash out the solution A and so the highlight compensation is going down and if you don't give enought agitation you risk to have streaks on the emulsion.
I usually develop Tri-X in D76 1:1 with the classic one minute agitation and then a cycle every 30s.
Would agitation for 30s and then a cycle every minute good enough with Diafine used with pushed 1600 ASA Tri-X?

 

[Paul Howell]

I agitate for 20 seconds to start then 5 inversions every minute. I think that's what the directions on the box, package, recommends.

 

[Radost]

I use Xtol 1:1 and jobs and the results are outstanding.
Sorry if not on subject. Just saying.

 

[c41]

I use Xtol 1:1 and jobs and the results are outstanding.
Sorry if not on subject. Just saying.

For how long? With how much agitation? Thanks.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use Xtol 1:1 and jobs and the results are outstanding.
Sorry if not on subject. Just saying.

View attachment 426547

Did you push to 1600?

 

[Radost]

Yes

For how long? With how much agitation? Thanks.

I have to check my notes. Pretty sure it was Kodak recommendation.
Jobo regular agitation.

 

[Radost]

Did you push to 1600?

Yes
Shoot at @1600 develop for 1600.

 

[Paul Howell]

Good shadow details, contrast is likely a bit better than Diafine, and cost, Diafine is now over a $100 a gallon. I would use Xtol or D76 stock.

 

[Radost]

Just to clarify - stock Xtol gave me too much contrast and a little more pronounced grain. 1:1 does magic with the grain and contrast. I know I should not even agitate with the Jobo but it works. And I love consistent results.

 

[images39]

I use Xtol 1:1 and jobs and the results are outstanding.
Sorry if not on subject. Just saying.

View attachment 426547

Nice, I really like that look. Tight grain, visible but not over the top. Being able to shoot at 1600 can be useful, especially if you can still get results like this.

Dale