Best developer for pushing TriX ?

[damienm]

Hi,

What in peoples opinions is the best developer with which to push TriX to 1600. I'm planning on doing a bit of handheld 35mm night shooting, and with a stack of TriX in the fridge, I would like to see what I can do with it for my nocturnal shooting.

I currently use D76, which gives me great tonality when diluted 1+1 and combined with gently overexposured negs. I'd like to stay with D76, but am keeping an open mind that there may be much better options for pushing.

Experience or opinions welcome,

Thanks,

Damien

 

[Athiril]

I've done Tri-X @ 6400 with amazing results in a Rodinal 1+100, 2 hour semi-stand, 120 though.

I have no experience with D-76 though.

 

[cbphoto]

Everything you need to know is in my very first APUG thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[clayne]

XTOL. The answer is always XTOL.

 

[2F/2F]

Most developers will do. Your D-76 will do the job fine. I wouldn't use Perceptol/Microdol-X.

D-23 has become one of my favorites for pushing, as it gives a little nudge to low-end densities, without going too crazy on the high end. X-Tol and T-Max are also good at shoring up the low end when you underexpose, and they build more contrast than D-23, if that is what you want. For a more "upswept" look to the tonality of the image (depressed, emptier low tones and more biting and contrasty high tones), HC-110 is very good. D-19 is the thing to use if you want lots of contrast and grain. Dektol works well for this as well.

However, D-76 is quite good for pushing as well. I would not bother going out to get anything special to push your film to 1600 if you already have and know D-76.

 

[rudolf]

Well, I would definitely recommend checking Diafine. I'm using it and quite happy with the results

 

[BetterSense]

I regularly shoot Tri-X in my XA4 set at 1600. I develop either in Diafine or Xtol 1+1 for about 12 minutes. Shadow speed between the two developers is basically identical; I will use Diafine if there are some heavily exposed shots on the roll that I don't want to overdevelop. If the roll is more evenly expose Xtol gives much finer grain.

To me, pushing doesn't mean much...I develop in Xtol 1+1 anyway, so I'm already using basically the fastest developer. Pushing the development time doesn't change shadow values much compared to normal development, and I can easily increase my paper grade to do the same thing as extending development time. So to me, pushing just means developing slightly longer if the roll is uniformly underexposed, so that I don't have to print at grade 4-5.

D-23 has become one of my favorites for pushing, as it gives a little nudge to low-end densities, without going too crazy on the high end.

D23 is my favorite developer for PULLING film. I have done multiple tests that suggest D23 costs as much as a stop of shadow density compared to other developers...I consider it a microdol-x type developer. I would never use D23 for pushing film unless you don't care about getting the most shadow speed. But then, people use Rodinal for pushing too and to me that's an active developer that builds lots of highlight contrast without developing the utmost in shadow speed, so maybe I just don't understand what the big deal is about pushing. I guess people have all these fancy ideas about it, but you are not going to get more shadow speed no matter what you do, so what's the big deal?

 

[Ken N]

I use Ilford DD-X for everything. I'm sure I could get something a smidge better with other custom brews, but I appreciate having one quality developer that does it all.

 

[H. James Wolf]

D-23 has become one of my favorites for pushing, as it gives a little nudge to low-end densities, without going too crazy on the high end.

I, too, have been using D23 to push TriX to 1600, diluting 1:1 for 15 or 16 minutes. Are there other times/dilutions that work well?

 

[damienm]

Thanks all for the feedback, and please keep it coming, should you feel there's something that should be added to the debate. It looks like I have some research/ testing to do with pushing TriX to 1600, and see if it gives me the results I seek. If not, it sounds like Xtol is more than up to the job.

One thing I am curious about though, is whether 2-bath developing is worth consideration, given the lower innate shadow density in my negs from exposing them at 1600, 2 stops over the box speed.

 

[BetterSense]

Depends on which 2-bath it is.

Just this weekend I picked out a scene with deep shadows and rattled off a whole roll of Tri-X in my motor-drive OM1 in sequences of f/2, f/2.8....f/22, all at 1/500s. I developed a third of the roll in replenished D23, a third of it in Xtol 1+1 for 12 minutes, and a third of it in Diafine. Comparing all 3 film strips on a light box, it is easy to compare levels of shadow detail. The test showed that Diafine and Xtol had essentially identical shadow detail, but the D23 had less shadow detail than either of the others. If you slid the D23 strip down one frame so that you were comparing each D23 frame with an Xtol/Diafine frame that was exposed 1 stop less, then the D23 shadow detail was on par with the Xtol and Diafine. A pretty conclusive test, at least for my batch of metol.

 

[bblhed]

If you want to push it and still have developing times close to what you are used to with D-76 try Dektol, you will need to experiment a little, but Dektol can push film quite well, in fact Dektol may push film a lot farther than you are trying to go.
According to this http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.pdf you should be able to use D-76 at full strength for 13 Minutes and get fine results.

 

[Athiril]

Interesting about the Dektol I may have to pick some up if vanbar has it.

 

[Loris Medici]

Beware, (IME) grain is considerably larger and coarser with print developers...

If stock D76 or Xtol doesn't work as you like it, I would suggest that you try phenidone based push developers such as Microphen - I always had good results with it...

P.S. I don't believe it would give significantly superior results compared to Xtol, BTW... See for yourself.

 

[makanakijones]

I've done Tri-X @ 6400 with amazing results in a Rodinal 1+100, 2 hour semi-stand, 120 though.

I have no experience with D-76 though.

I am interested in this answer.
How many inversions per minute?
What about the grain?
What about shadow and lights density?

Thank you in advance.

 

[cdowell]

I very much admire the results this photographer is getting with Tri-X @1600 processed in Rodinal (1:50 for about 25 minutes). He seems to shoot this way day-to-day, not just in "push" situations.

Link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgodzinski/4200199615/

 

[Athiril]

I am interested in this answer.
How many inversions per minute?
What about the grain?
What about shadow and lights density?

Thank you in advance.

Grain is very fine.


1+100, 2 hour semi stand (I do a presoak with mine too btw since its 120).

30 seconds initial agitation.

2 gentle inversions at 40 minute mark.
2 gentle inversions at 1 hour 20 minute mark.

That is all.

Density is very good over all.

Example, has had levels set for my preferred contrast (like printing):

Tri-X 6400 Test #1, Night Street by athiril, on Flickr

Crop of out of focus area to show grain (focus is in foreground), has had digital sharpening applied which increases apparent grain.

51200 from the same roll - I can tell you there is only 2.5-3 stops of range on the neg, and the neg was quite thin.


Tri-X 51200 Test #1, Beach Night by athiril, on Flickr

I very much admire the results this photographer is getting with Tri-X @1600 processed in Rodinal (1:50 for about 25 minutes). He seems to shoot this way day-to-day, not just in "push" situations.

Link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgodzinski/4200199615/

Here is one I did on Tri-X @ 1600, 1+50, 20 min

Ended up with a large density difference between some of the brighter highlights and midtones.

Initial 30 sec agitation.
2 gentle inversions at:
1 min
2 min
4 min
8 min
16 min (the agitation scheme was a random experiment into a different distribution of agitation)


Violet on Tri-X 1600 by athiril, on Flickr

 

[clayne]

Why are all these "push x film with y developer?" threads always the same?

If your scene has adequate lighting the effects of pushing film are going to be a lot less than if you *need* to push. But it doesn't matter, every single type of these threads turns into "let me post my photos pushed to EI 89000 and developed in Zordinal Kryptoflex 1+345 for a week" type situation.

Want solid results with out of all the fake black magic? Use a developer that is known to not lose film speed, provide adequate shadow detail, and keep grain under control. A few have already been mentioned.

 

[Athiril]

Why are all these "push x film with y developer?" threads always the same?

If your scene has adequate lighting the effects of pushing film are going to be a lot less than if you *need* to push. But it doesn't matter, every single type of these threads turns into "let me post my photos pushed to EI 89000 and developed in Zordinal Kryptoflex 1+345 for a week" type situation.

Want solid results with out of all the fake black magic? Use a developer that is known to not lose film speed, provide adequate shadow detail, and keep grain under control. A few have already been mentioned.

Actually mine was pushed in a reicprocity situation AND it has more than adequate shadow detail.

And for non-reciprocity scenes, pushing is useful for faster shutter speed, and can also be especially especially useful for flash lighting off camera for controlled lighting situations situations.

Rodinal keeps the shadow detail there very well, and has some of the best grain control out there for pushing (from my experience - meaning something I've actually tried, not read somewhere online and conform to popular opinion), which is contradictory to popular internet opinion, Xtol turns a push like this into muddy-mush (again from my experience).

There is no fake black magic here, I have described my method and shown my results.

There is nothing exotic about the process, hard to get or expensive, it is Rodinal not "Zordinal Kryptoflex" and it is 1+100, a common dilution not "1+345", and it is two hours, not a week.


It seems to me most people are internet experts on the topic of grain and pushing with Rodinal, and also Tri-X, but have never actually used or tried it.


If you want to make angsty unsubstantiated veiled attacks on sharing my experience in response to someone asking for it, then take it to the The Soap Box, and leave it in there.

Please keep things objective outside of The Soap Box.

 

[2F/2F]

"D23 is my favorite developer for PULLING film. I have done multiple tests that suggest D23 costs as much as a stop of shadow density compared to other developers...I consider it a microdol-x type developer. I would never use D23 for pushing film unless you don't care about getting the most shadow speed. But then, people use Rodinal for pushing too and to me that's an active developer that builds lots of highlight contrast without developing the utmost in shadow speed, so maybe I just don't understand what the big deal is about pushing. I guess people have all these fancy ideas about it, but you are not going to get more shadow speed no matter what you do, so what's the big deal?"

We have different experiences with D-23, then. I find that D-23 gives higher shadow density than most general-purpose developers, and does not readily blast the high tones. These are ideal characteristics for a push developer, unless one is aiming for emptier shadows and more biting high tones (which I often am, and for which I use HC-110). These things also make it a great developer for pulling. However, it is quite far from Microdol-X/Perceptol. These are special-purpose fine-grained developers that are not very sharp in the grand scheme of things, and which definitely do cost shadow density. D-23 does not do either of these things. It is much more of a general-purpose developer than Microdol-X/Perceptol, albeit a tad "soft" compared to D-76.

 

[BetterSense]

I agree that D23 is not unsharp and unversatile like Microdol. But across multiple batches, and multiple films, I have found that it sacrifices significant shadow speed compared to other developers including HC110, Rodinal, and Xtol. An older test on TMAX is here:

chazmiller.com/projects/devtest.html

My latest test, inspired by this thread, came out similar with Tri-X. I don't have any other issues with it, it is very reliable and gives very nice negatives as long as you ensure proper exposure. I wonder if I have a batch of bad metol? Do you think that you gain some speed when you use it diluted? I always use it neat.

 

[clayne]

If you want to make angsty unsubstantiated veiled attacks on sharing my experience in response to someone asking for it, then take it to the The Soap Box, and leave it in there.

Please keep things objective outside of The Soap Box.

Hey Chief, I've pushed plenty of film. The point I'm trying to make is that people keep searching and searching for some magic combo - and there is none. They also continually ignore the fact that they're not really getting any more shadow detail - just shifting the curve.

How much of your photography is just sitting around and testing various scenarios/screwing around with film vs actually shooting it?

 

[Athiril]

All my film is 'actually shooting'.

Take your crap to The Soap Box and leave it there.

 

[2F/2F]

Better Sense,

When I first tried D-23 (1:1) last year, I did my standard bracketing test on 35mm film to see if I should rate films any differently when using it. I did not compare to D-76 or Rodinal, but to my standard developer, HC-110 dilution B, which I have used for almost everything for some time. I used HP5, a film I know well and for which I have done prior testing with 35mm. I used a densitometer (not mine, but brand new and freshly calibrated) on the negs. It showed that when both were developed to normal contrast, the D-23 made for about a half to a third of a stop's worth more density above B+F up to about four stops over B+F than did the HC-110. In other words, at what Zonies would call a Zone IV placement is about where the D-23 and HC-110 densities finally met. Their respective densities matched each other fairly closely until about eight stops over B+F, and then the HC-110 separated from the D-23, and began to give slightly higher densities than the D-23, at the same exposure. Since I generally base exposure on the middle tones, I determined that I should rate HP5 at the same EI for both developers.

I am not sure, but I think that a lot of the reason that many people seem to report a loss of speed with D-23 is that they often use it specifically for tonal contraction, which usually does lower low-toned densities. Of course, exposure is also key. I never use in-camera meters, especially for film testing. For these tests, I used an incident meter to find the exposure that would place a grey card at middle grey on a normal print, with an Orbiculight as the light source. As I already said, I got the same mid tones from both developers, so the same exposure worked for both. The D-23 resulted in slightly higher low-toned densities and lower high-toned densities than the HC-110.

I don't know much about chemistry, but I suppose it is possible that our water supplies could cause a difference in pH significant enough to cause our results to be different. As for whether or not dilution caused the differences, it is certainly possible. Dilution lowers the ratio of sulfite to the total solution, and also changes pH. However, I do not know if diluting from stock to 1:1 is heavy enough dilution to result in a stop or more difference between our tests. I also used a static test subject in constant lighting, incident metering, and a densitometer, while you may have used different procedures and equipment. This is just another case in point of why we each need to rely on our own experiences with materials more than anything else.

 

[bill@lapetelabs.com]

I agree with BetterSense. The Diafine film developer is a compensating developer and produces a reasonably good Shadow Detail without simply running up the contrast at the expense of the SD. I've used it for year with good results and suggest that you try it, just follow the enclosed instructions with care and you will probably be satisfied with the results.