Getting the best shadow detail out of Tri-x @3200

[Oliver17]

Hi Apug,

I have a small problem, and was told this place was a good place to come.

I usually shoot HP5+, and regularly push it to 3200 in LC29, with very good results. But for recent project, I decided to try some Tri-X instead. I developed a few that I shot at 3200, and found that the shadow detail was far worse than when I used HP5+. I am asking for any advice on how to get the most shadow detail out of the negative, and how to get a nice low contrast range. I have D-76, T-Max and I think I have some Rodinal kicking about. I am open to stand developing as well.

Many thanks,

Oliver

 

[darkosaric]

Welcome to APUG Oliver .

If you must use TriX @3200 then everybody says that Xtol, DDX and Microphen are good developers for this. I find it useful to overdevelop when I push (if I push to 1600, I develop for 3200, push to 3200 - I develop to 6400...).

 

[markbarendt]

I concur with darkosaric, if you must shoot at 3200. Those developers may help by a third to half a stop.

Camera exposure is though, the most important thing in getting good shadow detail, bar none.

Stand development can get you a bit more detail but that comes at a cost too, the shadows areas (and highlights) may not have the same "snap" as a normally agitated negative. That may or may not be workable for you.

Honestly, if you are struggling with TriX at 3200 I'd use one of the faster developers and maybe expose at 2000. If HP5 was working well for you though...

 

[Xmas]

If you dont like Tri-X then try HP5+, Delta400, and Delta3200.

 

[Urmonas]

Think about the process you are going through. You are deliberately underexposing film and then developing to a higher contrast to try to "fill the tonal range". Overdevelopment has only a small effect on the shadow detail. To improve your shadow detail you want the best "speed yield" developer. Some were suggested by a previous poster.

You can control your contrast by changing developing time, but by its very nature push processing is about increasing contrast because you have in effect "thrown away" several stops of useful information and are trying to get what is left to fill the full tonal range.

To really improve shadow detail you will be better off with a faster film. This will give you both better shadow detail and lower contrast.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Kodak says it ain't gonna happen. TX at an EI of 800 is OK. Higher ratings will yield poorer and poorer results. Read the section on pushing in the following Kodak publication.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

When you push film you will lose shadow detail. This information is just not recorded on the film. No developer or increase in development time can bring back that which is not there. I don't know why this concept appears so difficult to so many people.

 

[Oliver17]

Thanks for the replies.

I understand the effects on the image from push processing, and as I said, I have pushed HP5+ alot to 3200 and got results I liked, I just didn't realise that Tri-X had a much lower exposure latitude. So now it's more a case of damage control, and finding the best way to develop it, to make sure I get all the detail out of the shadows that I can, rather than using the wrong developer and making it any worse.

Xtol was mentioned, and the closest thing I have to Xtol is D-76. Generally I thought that having a very dilute developer gave less contrasty negatives, but someone advised me that I should use D-76 stock. What are peoples thoughts on this?

I definitely prefer Tri-X over HP5+, but for when shooting at iso400. I think from now on I'll use Tri-X, but always keeps a few rolls of HP5+ incase I want to shoot faster.

 

[Tom1956]

400 speed films can't be pushed that high. 800 or 1200 is OK enough, but no more.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks for the replies.

I understand the effects on the image from push processing, and as I said, I have pushed HP5+ alot to 3200 and got results I liked, I just didn't realise that Tri-X had a much lower exposure latitude. So now it's more a case of damage control, and finding the best way to develop it, to make sure I get all the detail out of the shadows that I can, rather than using the wrong developer and making it any worse.

Xtol was mentioned, and the closest thing I have to Xtol is D-76. Generally I thought that having a very dilute developer gave less contrasty negatives, but someone advised me that I should use D-76 stock. What are peoples thoughts on this?

I definitely prefer Tri-X over HP5+, but for when shooting at iso400. I think from now on I'll use Tri-X, but always keeps a few rolls of HP5+ incase I want to shoot faster.

Well, it depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

If you use a dilute developer, like Xtol 1:3, your developing time will be longer. This is good for rescuing shadow detail, because the longer you develop the film the more shadow detail you're able to eke from your severe underexposure.
But, obviously the rest of the tones will develop more too when you develop longer, increasing your overall contrast. The only way to counter that is to reduce agitation so that the highlights remain printable.

I just processed a couple of rolls of HP5+ that were shot at EI 1,600, and got acceptable negatives by using Xtol 1+3 for 25 minutes, agitating every two minutes.

For Tri-X at EI 3,200 I would probably process for 25-30 minutes, agitating every 3 minutes. Do a test roll first.

 

[Urmonas]

I may not be understanding something here. Your reference is HP5+ in LC-29. LC-29 (from memory) is a fairly middle of the road developer for speed. So HP5+ shot at 3200 will not be giving you much shadow detail. You also want lower contrast but push processing by its very nature is high contrast.

As a guess what you are trying to acheive is to increase the tonal range in the shadows (higher contrast), and at the same time tame the highlights (reduced contrast). If this guess is correct, then you want a high speed yield compensating developer. The easiest way would be to use a high speed yield developer in at a high dilution and minimal aggitation. Thomas gave some details above. Other alternatives are two bath developers, and tanning developers, though these may not give the speed yield so lose shadow detail.

For this purpose D-76 is not the same as Xtol. Xtol will give you a higher speed yield which will help with shadow details.

You should definitely try some test rolls so you can tune the process to get what you feel is a good result.