• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Best developer to achieve highest ISO with Tri-X

David Allen

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
991
Location
Berlin
Format
Med. Format RF
One of my students has a project where he needs to get maximum ISO out of Tri-X whilst retaining at least some shadow detail.

For all of his other work we have identified that Tri-X exposed in his Nikon FM + 50mm lens and developed in Barry Thornton's Two-Bath developer has an effective EI of 200. This gives him great tonality, full detail in the shadows and easy to print negatives. Alas, for this one particular project, an EI of 200 is at least 2 stops to slow.

My first thought was to mix up Crawley's FX-11 developer for him. Although Tri-X and FX-11 worked great back in the day when I sometimes had to photograph nightime football games, I haven't actually used this developer in at least 20 years (probably more). Back then, I tested FX-11, Microphen and HC110 with FX-11 giving the best ratio between effective speed, retaining some shadow detail and 'normal looking' tonality.

So to my question: Is Crawley's FX-11 still the best developer for getting the most out of Tri-X (and yes it has to be Tri-X as he has hundreds of rolls in his fridge) or is there a better choice these days?

Thanks for your help.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de
 

Dali

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,875
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Multi Format
Diafine.
 

Mike Crawford

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
614
Location
London, UK
Format
Medium Format
Hi David

Are you talking about using tri x at more than 400? My first boss, John Blomfield, who used to do a lot of opera and ballet photography in the 60s, introduced me to Acufine. Never tried it more than at 1600 or maybe 2000, but got great negatives with it. Haven't used it for a long time, but now quite intrigued to see how it would work with Delta 3200. Here's some info and pdfs.
http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/acufine.php
 

MDR

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
1,402
Location
Austria
Format
Multi Format
Acufine is the best choice imo. But why does he need to shoot with Tri-X it's a great film but T-Max 400 is better suited for pushing without losing shadow detail than tri-x and Delta 3200 is an even better choice if he needs speed and shadow detail. T-Max is also usually more affordable than tri-x
 
OP
OP

David Allen

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
991
Location
Berlin
Format
Med. Format RF

Hi Mike,

thanks for that - I had forgotten about Acufine - can you remember if you used it stock or the 1 + 3 dilution? Andrés' project will require him having an EI of 800 -1600 so Acufine could be the answer - especially if it really helps to keep the grain fine (so it would better match his BTTB developed negatives).

Currently, Foto Impex are showing Acufine and Diafine in stock. My concern is that they are often not in stock for months - hence thinking about Crawley's FX-11. My particular concern with Diafine is that people either praise it as a magic bullet or say it is too flat.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de
 
OP
OP

David Allen

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
991
Location
Berlin
Format
Med. Format RF

As Darko has already pointed out, I already touched on this in the original post - he has lots of the stuff in the fridge.

As a more general answer, it is also because he is following my advice:

"Stick with one camera, lens, film and developer until you are thoroughly comfortable with it and then (and only if it is absolutely necessary) change only one thing at a time".

In the case of my student, we quickly identified that the older lenses on his Rollei (as opposed to his Nikon) gave him images that suited his portrait work and the lenses on his Nikon better suited his other work. Tri-X in the Rollei tested at EI 400 in Thornton's Two-Bath developer and in the Nikon Tri-X has an EI of 200. These combinations have been fine for all of his work over the past two years.

However, the particular project he is going to work on needs the flexibility and range of lenses available to him only with the Nikon - hence the question about changing the developer to suit.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de
 

flavio81

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,241
Location
Lima, Peru
Format
Medium Format
Hi David,

You will find interesting info with actual tests here:

http://emirco.net/photo/projects/Tri-X_Test_3200_6400_2011/Tri-X-6-Developers-High-ISO-Test.pdf

Ok, they are aiming for an EI of 6400, but it still can give you a reference of the possibilities.

Since you specify that you want ISO 800 with great tonality, i would suggest going for Ilford Delta 3200, which is actual ISO 1000-1250 more or less. Such film should give plenty of shadow detail at ISO 800.

But since you specify "Tri-X", then it's not so easy. Has he tried Microphen? Microphen should give "real" ISO 500 out of Tri-X, perhaps even 640. Without push.
 

gone

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
I have used Acufine w/ Tri-X at stock solution for 35mm at 800. Very sharp, very tight grain. Somewhat amazingly tight to my eyes. Not the same tonality as D76/TD-16, not the same grain as Rodinal (which was really sharp, but did show grain of course). Fast development times too.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,409
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
When XP1 was released I switched from HP5 or Tri-x push processing as per Ilford's instructions, far better tonality an since shadow detail. When XP-2 came out Ilford dropped the times but it could/can still be pushed to 1600 & 3200 in C41 chemistry.

For years this was my B&W film for concert photography, the only reason Ilford dropped the push process recommendations was labs hadn't liked the non standard C41 times for XP1 normal processing. I had a discussion about this with someone from Ilford research, and 2 senior managers in about 1983/4 when I was visiting the Ilford factory on business, they confirmed what I already knew and was doing, XP2 can be push processed. I've times in the UK but not home for 5 days.

The advantage with XP2 is there isn't the huge contrast build up associated with push processing Tri-X or HP5 and the grain is finer.

Ian
 

MDR

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
1,402
Location
Austria
Format
Multi Format
Sorry missed that one completely
The one developer thing isn't really a good advice if you tell him to use Acufine as a push developer it is great as a general purpose developer it's not that good. Very short dev times that can lead to inconsistent results. Still a great developer and your Student can use filters. Again sorry
 

Gerald C Koch

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
Most developers containing phenidone or one of its derivatives like Dimezone will produce a modest 1/2 to 2/3 stop increase in speed. More ambitious claims are just hype. So try Microphen, Xtol, or HC-110. Kodak recommends using HC-110 for pushing Tri-X by 1 stop while still getting good results. They also caution that trying to attain a further speed increase will result in the loss of shadow detail. In other words there is no free lunch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

37th Exposure

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 5, 2010
Messages
208
Location
The Land of
Format
35mm
Atomal?

Microphen. From experience.

Since you're in Berlin, have you tried Adox Atomal 49? It's sold as speed increasing, pushing developer. I am sure you can get all you want at FotoImpex. It's hard to get here in the USA but I've tried it and am thinking of dumping D76 as Atomal mixes at room temp and the results IMO are better (smoother tonality and grain, at only slight expense of sharpness). I haven't tried pushing film with it just yet though.
 

Mike Crawford

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
614
Location
London, UK
Format
Medium Format
Hello David

We always used it as stock. Indeed, we had a smaller tank for the handline with Acufine ready for pushing TriX. Remembering the state of the developer, that was certainly a 'soup.' Sorry!

Now I remember, a friend in Cologne who used to do a lot of theater photography in Bielefeld used the same TriX / Acufine combination with very good results.

Let me know if you test it out, would be interested in hearing how it works.

Tscheus
Mike

 

Paul Verizzo

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
1,648
Location
Round Rock, TX
Format
35mm
Thanks for all the thoughts, guys.

I've never used POTA, but I think I understand it well. Nor do I have a great desire to make night street photography my hobby, just ponderings, if I may.

Whether I use a followup divided developer to bring up highlights or not, running a fogged but maximumly developed film in a scanner should allow about perfect recovery and contrast of the image. I know that statement will cause some heads to explode, but it's fact. I just scanned some color negs that to look at, sucked. Yes, if going straight to prints. Just fine scanned. All photo sins forgiven.
 

Gerald C Koch

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
POTA was designed to capture scenes like atomic bomb blasts where there is a very wide range of illumination. In order to do this it produces a very low contrast negative. Not really something you would want to use generally. It has found some use in taming the contrast of microfilms and Kodak Technical Pan 2415 film.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

David Allen

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
991
Location
Berlin
Format
Med. Format RF

Hi Mike,

at the moment the two front runners for testing are Acufine (at stock) and SPUR Push-Master in combination with SPUR SLD developer. The Acufine available here has a data sheet that states that it should be replenished but there is no replenisher available. The data sheet also says that you can process up to 16 rolls with an increased development time of +2% per additional film. What was your memory Mike? - and was it one of those developers that improved with age/use?

In response to other posts, I do understand that uprating film will incur a loss of shadow detail but the aim here is to minimise how much shadow detail is lost, minimise the amount of grain and to avoid too much contrast. Whilst there is never a 'magic bullet' in photography, there are nevertheless some film/developer combinations that work better than others when moving away from standard exposure and development.

For example, one of my students loves the work of Daido Moriyama. For her, we have standardised on HP5+ rated at EI 800 developed in HC110 dilution B for 8 minutes. This, when printed on Fomabrom C 112 (Hard 4), developed for 4 minutes in Dokumol 1 + 9 gives her the results that she likes. Not my cup of tea but the images are certainly 'in your face'.

Will report back after we have tested the films.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register