Best developer to achieve highest ISO with Tri-X

[David Allen]

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

 

[darkosaric]

Hi David,

From ones that I tried - Ilfotec DD-X and Microphen were the best for high iso 400 push, but I never tried FX-11. Minus is the price of developers.

 

[bdial]

Try Xtol

 

[Dali]

Diafine.

 

[Mike Crawford]

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]

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

 

[darkosaric]

But why does he need to shoot with Tri-X

(and yes it has to be Tri-X as he has hundreds of rolls in his fridge)

..

 

[David Allen]

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

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

 

[David Allen]

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

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]

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.

 

[David Allen]

Thanks for the link - an interesting experiment at the extremes.

ISO 800 is the minimum and I have never liked the look of Microphen.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[gone]

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]

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]

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

Try Xtol

That is where I would start too.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

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.

 

[Alan Johnson]

According to Crawley, FX-11 beats Microphen for speed alone, which was the question.
http://jackspcs.com/jackspcs/fx11.htm
But there is very little information about it or users to discuss it with.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

According to Crawley, FX-11 beats Microphen for speed alone, which was the question.
http://jackspcs.com/jackspcs/fx11.htm
But there is very little information about it or users to discuss it with.

There's an error in there. The alkali is listed as Borax(Sodium Carbonate).

 

[37th Exposure]

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]

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

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

 

[Alan Johnson]

There's an error in there. The alkali is listed as Borax(Sodium Carbonate).

Good spot, Paul, it is Borax in the Film Developing Cookbook.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

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]

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.

 

[David Allen]

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

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

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Tri-x in UFG. UFG is the originator that Acufine aspires to be.