Decided on Tri-X for everything—what now?

[Roger Cole]

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.

Well yes, exactly. If you shoot in similar lighting all the time, there is great value in it. I shoot in bright sun sometimes and "available darkness" plenty of times too. Delta 3200 is not the best choice for the former nor Pan F+ for the later, to give examples at the extreme ends.

 

[Roger Cole]

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.

I seem to recall reading that Emofin was very similar to Diafine. See above for my comments on it. I use it, and like it a lot, but it's not what I'd standardize on if I need those kinds of speeds. I shoot Tri-X in it at 1000-1250, close enough to your 800, but it won't get the 3200 the OP wants.

As for Delta 3200, 3200 is not "far too high" by any stretch. It's going to be grainy at high speed, there's really no way around that, but I find it works GREAT at 3200. These were all shot at 3200, developed for the times listed for 6400 in T-Max developer. With both D3200 and TMZ I found that developing according to the instructions for one stop more than I actually shot it at gives better results. T-Max developer IS a really good one for pushing. Not saying it's the best necessarily but it does work very well. It is not, however, cheap.

I know in a sense I'm saying to do something else other than what he asked about, but Tri-X at 3200, while it can be made to work, is just a huge stretch.

 

[DLawson]

You cannot effectively photograph a rock show at ISO400,

I was all ready to argue that you were exceptionally wrong. . . .

And then I realized that you were talking about a musical performance, rather than a lapidary exhibition.

Never mind.

 

[madgardener]

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.

Do you use a cut-throat razor or a double edge safety? :munch:

 

[tkamiya]

Standardizing on something doesn't have to mean exclusive of everything else does it?

I have my "standards" (plural) then for exceptional cases with special needs, I use something else. This is not like a marriage or anything.

 

[okto]

Do you use a cut-throat razor or a double edge safety? :munch:

Both. Safety razor does most of the mowing, straight razor does trimming at the edge of the chops and right around my nose.

Vilk, I may have jumped down your throat a bit. It wasn't just you, it's the repeated exposure to people in the analogue photo world whose cameras never seem to leave the tripod who don't seem to understand that some of us don't actually get to choose our film speed. For me, that simply isn't an option. It's a bit like someone asking how to cook broccoli and someone suggesting they eat a peach instead. Peaches are great, but they don't go as well with a steak.

I've tried Delta 3200. I haven't played with it enough to categorically say it can't work for me, but the grain is distractingly huge in 35mm and has a terrible character. Where TX grain just adds texture to an area of tone, D3200 grain has voids between the grains where there is no tone at all, like TV static. They just aren't usable images.


Mostly by "standardize", I want to create a thorough understanding of how Tri-X behaves in different situations so that I have a known point from which to experiment. I want to remove as many variables as possible, master that, and then branch out into trying new things. I chose Tri-X because in my experience no other film will put up with as much abuse. HP5+ is close, but I've never gotten very good tone out of it—always kind of looks muddy.

 

[Roger Cole]

What did you develop the D3200 in? I haven't shot it in 35mm - I've been shooting TMZ for that and will while it's still available - but I've shot plenty of it in 120 and the grain, while obvious, doesn't look like you describe at all. That sounds like "HC110 grain" with some films.

I would recommend TMZ except that it's been discontinued, though still available from remaining stock. But if you must push a designed for 400 film, Tri-X is about as good as any other I guess. Some people like TMY for that but while I love it in 4x5 where I work very methodically I never got along as well with it in 35mm. HP5 pushes well too, but I don't know that it's any better than Tri-X.

I'd try something like Microphen or Acufine if I had to push Tri-X to 3200. Xtol is supposed to work well for pushing too.

 

[Vilk]

Vilk, I may have jumped down your throat a bit.

hey, okto, never worry, i practice what i preach (i.e. take internet fora easy easy) so we're good i haven't shot anything but HP5+ @400 in DD-X myself for some 3-4 years now--which was why i read your post in the first place--so i wasn't exactly yapping for the sake of yapping, just trying to be helpful, if only by verbalizing related ideas. i love the focus on "the thing itself" that i gained from removing film choices from the process and i love the quality of reproduction i get, but if available darkness became my bread and butter, i would probably look at other options as well... sigh... i guess no help after all... best of luck in your quest!

 

[okto]

i love the focus on "the thing itself" that i gained from removing film choices from the process

That is definitely one of my goals. Remove as many non-creative decisions from photography as possible so I can focus on what really matters.

Research update: the Massive Dev Chart's times for pushing Tri-X in HC-110 are woefully short for my work. For ISO 3200, I gave it 20 minutes in HC-110B (listed time is 16 min) and reduced agitation from my since-college-days 10 inv/min to 5 inv/min, which got me some more usable gradation in tone. Next step is to see if I can halve the time and possibly reduce grain clumping with dilution A.

Roger Cole: Yes, I souped it in HC-110. I seem to remember not caring much for Delta 400 a few years ago either. I've been using HC-110 for everything since about 2007, so it could be that it doesn't play nice with Delta crystals. Come to think of it, I've had iffy results with Tmax 400 (both TMY and TMY2) as well.
Maybe HC-110 doesn't do as well with tab-grain emulsions. That's research for someone else to do.

 

[Tom1956]

Tri-X i a great film. Use it as long as they make it, and enjoy.

 

[dorff]

Standardizing on something doesn't have to mean exclusive of everything else does it?

I have my "standards" (plural) then for exceptional cases with special needs, I use something else. This is not like a marriage or anything.

Well, some marriages aren't necessarily at the exclusion of everybody else, either . I totally agree with your sentiment, though.

Standardising for a particular type/genre of photography is fine, and standardising on 3 or 4 films for the purpose of covering most bases is wise. But that cannot mean that all other options should be forever avoided. I try to spend around 20% of my photographic effort on trying new things or combinations.

Coming back to the OP, though, he has a point in that if he chooses to exclusively use a certain film (and possibly developer), he is entitled to ask how to get that to work to his best advantage. And if we want to help him, we should stay on track with his choice. Purchase a bulk roll of 35 mm, and roll your own test strips. That way you can try different developers and speed ratings on shorter film strips (say 12 exp or less), and save some money on film. If you have friends with some of the developers you haven't bought yet, ask them nicely to develop a roll or two for you. I would gladly do that if I lived anywhere near you. Try four or five entirely different developers against which others can be benchmarked. Then based on the results, plan your next round.

 

[Rolleijoe]

For pushing, you can't beat Diafine. Really excellent results with this combination. Rodinal for some things, HC-110 for others, and Diafine.

 

[Roger Cole]

For pushing, you can't beat Diafine. Really excellent results with this combination. Rodinal for some things, HC-110 for others, and Diafine.

I agree, IF you are content with the (fixed) results you get with Diafine. I used to get a consistent usable 1600 but with today's Tri-X, while I can get that in daylight, I rarely need 1600 in daylight. With tungsten light and today's Tri-X I get closer to 1000. I often shoot it at 1250 as an all around compromise that works ok.

But if you need to shoot at 3200, Diafine isn't going to cut it. NOTHING is going to give you great results with Tri-X at that speed but you can get usable results with other developers. They won't be as good as Diafine at 1250, but they'll be usable.