Decided on Tri-X for everythingwhat now?

okto · May 22, 2013

I decided I'm going to standardize on Tri-X for all my monochrome work. It's got a gorgeous look, the grain is nice but not overpowering, it's forgiving of mis-exposure, and it pushes well.
I shoot almost entirely available-light, documentary style stuff. Lots of punk shows, so terrible light means pushing to 3200 regularly. I have been using HC-110 for everything, because it's cheap, keeps forever, it's cheap, produces good results with Tri-X, it's cheap, and the varying standard dilutions give a lot of flexibility. Also it's cheap.

I'd like to stick with HC-110, just because I've been using it so long and I've gotten used to it, but I hear good things about Rodinal. Ultimately, I would like to put together a standard developing regimen that will allow me to get consistent results with Tri-X rated anywhere from 200 to 6400, preferably with one developer. I want to minimize grain clumpingI like the texture, but I've noticed that with some rolls, especially pushed, I get clumpy, muddy grain that's just not nice to look at at all. I don't have access to a darkroom, unfortunately, so for the time being all my negatives will be scanned, not wet printed.

What should I focus on first in creating a consistent workflow?

waynecrider · May 22, 2013

I like using a couple of different developers for TriX. One for pushing and a solvent developer for shooting at regular speed. A consistent workflow comes from hard work and determination to learn the materials chosen thru repeated use, limited (not none) outside exploration for focus on those specific materials chosen, and consistency in the development and printing routine. Since your digital on the back end your going to need a calibrated monitor and printer.

removed account4 · May 22, 2013

what *I* would do is buy as much as you can and cold store it
and keep buying more.
buy some old/expired cold stored stuff too so you can understand
how to use it when its old, and stock up because it would be a shame
to standardize on something you LOVE and not be able to use it down the road.

you are lucky though because when it does come that the writing on the wall reads
no trix x in "x" number of years there will still be other great films available
( like ilford ) to help you through your mourning period

have fun, great film, i totally agree -
john

zsas · May 22, 2013

I love Tri-X in HC-110 for my normal art, though when I need an indoor-push - Diafine and Tri-X were a match made in heaven! A couple bottles of HC-110 and Diafine can cover 98.27% of what I need...for for thought

Jeff Kubach · May 22, 2013

For my normal suff I go with Tri-X and D-76.

Jeff

kchoquette · May 22, 2013

I usually push Tri-X two stops to 1600 and if anything, notice an increase in detail which I prefer over box-speed. That said, I can't help but feel like three -> four stops might just be demanding a little too much.

I use Rodinal, which tends to bring out really clumpy grain with Tri-X and HP5+ so HC-110 is probably still a good decision. D76 and Tri-X will definitely get you a much smoother grain, but I've never experienced pushing with it, so I couldn't say!

If you really want to work with pushing that much, might as well give T-Max a try, since I've read it handles the pushing a lot better than Tri-X. T-Max 400 was suggested as the replacement for P3200, so you might wanna give it a try!

semi-ambivalent · May 22, 2013

If we're talking about developers, Tri-X and pushing, you can also look into the occult rituals of stand developing in rodinal. There's lots here and http://www.flickr.com/groups/rodinal/discuss, especially from one P. Lynn Miller. Don't say I didn't warn you.

s-a

markbarendt · May 22, 2013

Tri X is great, you might give XTol a go too. Might get you a bit more shadow detail.

One of the things that I've found in my quest is that just because I shoot at say 1600 or 3200 doesn't mean I need to develop at 1600 or 3200. I can typically expose down to 1250 or 1600 on my 400 speed B&W films and just use normal development. Minimizing development minimizes grain.

With a bit of experimentation you may find that +1 (instead of +3) is plenty for 3200 and +2 may work fine for 6400, if it is enough your grain issue will largely disappear.

tkamiya · May 22, 2013

Yup.... I like Tri-X too.

My "standard" is Tri-X and Tmax400. Tri-X tends to have more bite. Tmax is usually very smooth.... Each has unique mood the other cannot duplicate. I see no reason to just pick one.

Developer wise, I've standardized on D-76 for normal processing and XTOL for push processing. Both films pushed to 1600 very nicely with XTOL. I have no experience with HC-110. This is a subject asking the mass create far more confusion than anything else. I'd say just do it and if you run into problems, come back and ask questions....

okto · May 23, 2013

Thanks for all the responses, y'all! Lots of good info in there. I shoot primarily un-metered at Shadow 16 (which is what I call my estimation system based on club lighting), often in light where wide open isn't enough for a proper exposure at the minimum shutter speed subject motion allows for. Needless to say, there will be some inconsistency in exposure. I am twisting any film I use half to death just to get a usable image, so I guess I can't be too picky about grain.
It's all about the gesture. Someday I'll learn to see the decisive moment.

"Longer development equals more grain" is a nugget of wisdom that'll get me thinking in the right direction. HC-110 might be ideal here, since at these development levels I can hop down to dilution A (I usually use dilution B) and get shorter dev times. After all, it was developed specifically for newspapers to give quick dev times...

semi-ambivalent said:
If we're talking about developers, Tri-X and pushing, you can also look into the occult rituals of stand developing in rodinal. There's lots here and http://www.flickr.com/groups/rodinal/discuss, especially from one P. Lynn Miller. Don't say I didn't warn you.

I keep a 280,000-mile Mercedes diesel running by myself, I actively disallow myself from getting into steampunk, and I've taken up traditional wet shaving with a straight razor. I don't need another obtuse obsession.

markbarendt · May 23, 2013

okto said:
"Longer development equals more grain" is a nugget of wisdom that'll get me thinking in the right direction. HC-110 might be ideal here, since at these development levels I can hop down to dilution A (I usually use dilution B) and get shorter dev times. After all, it was developed specifically for newspapers to give quick dev times...

Just to clarify a bit the prominence of grain, its not about "longer" or "shorter" times. It is about how far the chemical relations go.

HC110 at dilution A and B can both develop the film to the same amount, dilution B will just take a bit longer. Negatives that are developed for say EI 1600 per the instructions in each dilution will develop to the same contrast index, the steepness of the characteristic curve will be the same and the grain will be very similar.

To reduce the prominence of the grain you need to truly develop less, reducing the steepness of the curve, by say using the directions for EI 800 or 400 instead of 3200 or 6400. This will make a very significant difference in grain. You will need to test various combinations though to see what the best compromise is for your work.

Using say XTol instead of HC110 is not about time either, it is that it works differently and may soften the grain a bit more (more solvent action) and give you a slight advantage in speed (get you more shadow detail because it develops "differently") as compared to HC110.

The differences between HC110 and XTol are real and can be very worthwhile, but they only incremental, they are not magic bullets that provide an overwhelming difference.

dorff · May 23, 2013

It is surprising that nobody here has mentioned TMax Developer. It was formulated very specifically for pushing TMax 400 to into the high ranges AFAIK, but it does this elegantly with all 400 films, notably also TriX and HP5+. You will get much better shadows using TMD compared to Rodinal and HC-110, which have the same propensity for a steep mid-curve that only gets steeper with push-processing. Diafine as far as I know does well with push-processing too, but it creates a flat negative overall. If scanning is your thing, that should not prevent you from adjusting the curve any way you like. For darkroom printing, it is a different matter.

markbarendt · May 23, 2013

I thought about mentioning TMax developer as a good option in my last post but decided I wanted to get the concepts about processing choices across more than I wanted to promote a specific developer. Heck, for the OP's type of photography I'd probably even use TMax 400 or Delta 400 or maybe even Delta 3200 as the film, but thats a subjective choice. Nothing wrong with the OP's choice of Tri X and HC110.

Technique, understanding, testing, and choices about processing and exposure are in my mind much more important.

Roger Cole · May 23, 2013

dorff said:
It is surprising that nobody here has mentioned TMax Developer. It was formulated very specifically for pushing TMax 400 to into the high ranges AFAIK, but it does this elegantly with all 400 films, notably also TriX and HP5+. You will get much better shadows using TMD compared to Rodinal and HC-110, which have the same propensity for a steep mid-curve that only gets steeper with push-processing. Diafine as far as I know does well with push-processing too, but it creates a flat negative overall. If scanning is your thing, that should not prevent you from adjusting the curve any way you like. For darkroom printing, it is a different matter.

I love Tri-X in Diafine but I don't think it would suit the OP's needs. It's a bit flat but prints optically just fine, usually on grade 3, occasionally 3.5 (with my condenser enlarger.) More importantly though it provides no real flexibility. It does what it does and stops. 1600 is quite usable with daylight, say heavy overcast, more like 1000 for tungsten light. I compromise at 1250. The older Tri-X of the 70s and 80s I could shoot at 1600 in all light but the new stuff just doesn't seem as fast under tungsten. You will NOT get a usable 3200 out of Tri-X in Diafine, at least not for optical printing. You might be able to rescue such negatives by scanning but that's what it would be, a rescue operation. But it is very economical, though it costs a bit to buy it develops a ton of film for the money.

If I had need of these speeds too - well I do - I'd use Tri-X for the slower stuff and Delta 3200 now that TMZ is defunct for anything above 1600. Delta 3200 is great at 3200 developed in T-Max developer but neither the film nor developer are cheap, which seems to be a priority.

I think the virtues of settling on one film can be, and almost always are, vastly overstated. There's a certain advantage to it but I happily shoot everything from Pan F+ to Delta 3200. Tri-X is my standard for 400 speed film, however, so I understand the appeal.

markbarendt · May 23, 2013

I actually see great value in settling on one film/developer combo with a caveat. For a given type/class of shot.

If you are after a very specific result or have a very specific way you like to shoot, having a standard way to get that result makes life easier. It makes life simpler in the darkroom.

That said, my norm is not standardized on one film. It is simply to incident meter and develop to the normal contrast speed indicated in the manufacturer's instructions whenever I can. From there I figure out how much latitude I've got (what I can get away with) for each of my films.

Jonathan R · May 23, 2013

If you are doing a lot of shows with deep shadows and the likelihood of bright lights within the frame, I would suggest you try Tetenal's Emofin, which is a 2-bath developer. Tri-X comes up just beatiful in Emofin (e.g. Dead Link Removed - email me if you want to judge from larger images), and I believe it unearths as much shadow detail as any developer can. Extended souping of films in e.g. Rodinal will not create shadow detail that failed to trigger silver grains because exposure was too brief. It's hard to accept, but it's true.

At the same time, the compensating effect of the 2-bath Emofin will take care of your bright lights. This highlight detail may not show up in simple scans, but if you look at the neg the detail will be there, and can be printed in or captured with more sophisticated scanning techniques. I rated Tri-X at 800 ISO and developed for 5 min + 5 min at 20 deg C. However, given your subject matter, I think you would be kidding yourself to rate Tri-X any higher than 400. If you are wondering why I don't use this combination any longer, it's because Emofin was getting very pricey, so I decided to mix my own 2-bath developer from Barry Thornton's formula. I also switched to Ilford HP5+ because its future seemed more secure.

I have also used Ilford Delta 3200 with some success (e.g. Dead Link Removed), but it is very grainy and again I reckon 3200 ISO is pushing it far too high. 800 is probably realistic.

zsas · May 23, 2013

Roger Cole said:
I think the virtues of settling on one film can be, and almost always are, vastly overstated. There's a certain advantage to it but I happily shoot everything from Pan F+ to Delta 3200. Tri-X is my standard for 400 speed film, however, so I understand the appeal.

Wise words!

jp498 · May 23, 2013

I've shot a couple of concerts with tmy2 film (fussier than tri-x) and developed with pyrocat-hd. It's more apt to handle highlights better (bright stage lights) than d76. It's probably cheaper than hc110 too. Look for pyrocat hd in glycol.

Vilk · May 23, 2013

okto said:
What should I focus on first in creating a consistent workflow?

like, consistency?

i say, stay the course--despite all the great advice in this thread, stick with one developer. see if you can live with one speed--do you really need to shoot in the dark or is it more of a just-in-case problem?

one film, one dev, one speed for a few years and you'll start noticing that your pictures actually have content, sometimes even meaning, not just grain, curves, tonality, shadows, etc etc.

markbarendt · May 23, 2013

Vilk said:
like, consistency?

i say, stay the course--despite all the great advice in this thread, stick with one developer. see if you can live with one speed--do you really need to shoot in the dark or is it more of a just-in-case problem?

one film, one dev, one speed for a few years and you'll start noticing that your pictures actually have content, sometimes even meaning, not just grain, curves, tonality, shadows, etc etc.

And avoid salt, pepper, and garlic with your meals too. :rolleyes:

While I'm not suggesting that the OP not stick with the decision to standardize on Tri X, not every shot has the same intent or lighting. I see no reason not to season the Tri X to taste.

Vilk · May 23, 2013

markbarendt said:
I see no reason not to season the Tri-X to taste.

one reason's right there, in my post

okto · May 23, 2013

Vilk said:
see if you can live with one speed--do you really need to shoot in the dark or is it more of a just-in-case problem?

This is an irritating thing I see crop up on APUG and P.net fairly frequently, and I don't like it. Someone asks for help with a certain technique or problem, and someone else chimes in with 'well what if you just give up completely the thing you want to do and do something different that won't produce the same results?' Often shows up when people are talking about doing a push in bad light and someone suggests not pushing. That's not useful advice. You cannot effectively photograph a rock show at ISO400, nor can you do it on a tripod.

So short answer: yes, I absolutely need the push because fully half of my photos are taken at or below LV5.

Vilk · May 23, 2013

oh-kee, so why not "standardize" on a film that was designed with that purpose in mind? to use mark's metaphor, to stick with one film is like to stick with one kind of food--the reasons for it have little to do with taste or nutrition (if anything, it would cause malnutrition, comparable to the substandard results obtained through a similar approach to film selection)

a forum is a forum, people talk. even if your reasoning were always flawless, i would see no reason to get irritated--no two people perceive reality the same way; comparing notes moves us forward... you would offer your (very different) opinion, if you saw me balancing on the handrail of a bridge, no?

removed account4 · May 23, 2013

hi okto

sometimes people chime in and suggest things outside your "scope of intent" of the thread not to be irritating
but because often times people have tunnel vision and don't see beyond their narrow scope. use tri x to your heart's content
push it to 12800 or pull it to asa 12 have a blast, but don't forget there are films designed to be shot at high speeds that don't require as much pushing.
just like there are hundreds of developers and some are workbetter in certain situations thanothers.
noneed to get bent out of shape ... at least you no one mentioned you could get a noise reduction logarithmic plug in ...
you might consider tailoring your negatives to 1 paper too, it makes it easier to print the negatives when the film and paper are "going steady" ...
... unless you are using the "devil beam".

jp498 · May 23, 2013

jnanian said:
... unless you are using the "devil beam".

Sounds fun.

Decided on Tri-X for everythingwhat now?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Decided on Tri-X for everythingwhat now?