Finally tried Tri-X at EI 1000 in Rodinal

gone · Dec 17, 2021

Tried Rodinal 1:40 for 13 minutes using Tri-X at 1000. The grain sorta depends on whether it's under or over exposed, but this shows promise. The prints will tell the tale, these are just proof scans. Not sure why it took so long to try this at 1000, I usually shoot it at 320. Has an old time look for sure. Could be very addictive!

Juan Valdenebro · Dec 17, 2021

Hi momus,
Great tone, except for skins.
I used Tri-X at 1600 in Rodinal for years, and yet I'm asking God for mercy...
Best $50 spent in Photography technique:
Photograph the same scene, including someone's face, three times at 1000. One with Tri-X in Rodinal, a second one with HP5+ in Microphen, and a third one with TMaxP3200 in TMax developer.
Wet print those three, or have them wet printed, and compare.

gone · Dec 17, 2021

I'm going to try it again at EI 1000 (maybe 2000, why not?) and try it in either F76 or D76 full strength. The noon day Arizona sun didn't help w/ the skin tones even in the shade, but I just like the look of all that grain, which is surprisingly tight and makes a photo look like it's from eons ago. Many people here have probably tried this combination 30 or 40 years ago, but for some reason I never used an EI faster than 400 w/ any film until now. The images, including the blacks, look considerably different than what I usually do.

Juan Valdenebro · Dec 19, 2021

momus said:
I'm going to try it again at EI 1000 (maybe 2000, why not?) and try it in either F76 or D76 full strength. The noon day Arizona sun didn't help w/ the skin tones even in the shade, but I just like the look of all that grain, which is surprisingly tight and makes a photo look like it's from eons ago. Many people here have probably tried this combination 30 or 40 years ago, but for some reason I never used an EI faster than 400 w/ any film until now. The images, including the blacks, look considerably different than what I usually do.

You say, why not? Because 1000 and 2000 are a million light years away.
1000 is decency, 2000 is utopy. None for direct sunlight, though.
Stay at 1000 and master it for overcast...
Good day!

afriman · Dec 19, 2021

Juan Valdenebro said:
You say, why not? Because 1000 and 2000 are a million light years away.
1000 is decency, 2000 is utopy. None for direct sunlight, though.
Stay at 1000 and master it for overcast...
Good day!

Surely there are more reasons to experiment than practical necessity. The OP likes the look of the film at 1000, now he wants to see what happens at 2000. Nothing wrong with that. It's the kind of curiosity that often leads to interesting, sometimes useful discoveries.

John Wiegerink · Dec 19, 2021

afriman said:
Surely there are more reasons to experiment than practical necessity. The OP likes the look of the film at 1000, now he wants to see what happens at 2000. Nothing wrong with that. It's the kind of curiosity that often leads to interesting, sometimes useful discoveries.

Yes, we'd all still believe the earth to be flat if it wasn't for folks like him. Well, some folks anyway. JohnW

Juan Valdenebro · Dec 19, 2021

Ha ha ha...
Well, It's fair to tell the OP all things in photography depend extensively on details: there are very few absolutes... Yes, he can make a superb wet print at EI2000: get a dark gray overcast scene, expose it perfectly at 2000, and develop perfectly a medium format tripod negative of Delta3200 in DD-X, f/22 and mirror lock-up.

Finally tried Tri-X at EI 1000 in Rodinal

gone

Juan Valdenebro

gone

Juan Valdenebro

afriman

John Wiegerink

Juan Valdenebro

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency