• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

I have one roll of Tri-X

rphenning

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
341
Location
California
Format
Med. Format RF
It is 120. I rated it at 3200. I would like to try some different developing than the standard shuffle and I was thinking stand development. How would I go about doing that? I have Microphen and ID11 on hand. Would it even be worth it? Interested in what you all have to say.
 
Stand development is really only useful for over exposed negs to stop the highlights blocking up while retaining more shadow detail, not for developing underexposed negs. I would suggest Microphen, or other active developer such as TMAX developer and adjust the time accordingly to suit your ISO rating. Then process as normal to get the density you'd require. I found the kodak data sheet has Tri-X 400 film rated at 3200 souped in TMAX developer (1:4) for 11 minutes @ 75 deg f.
 
I did some (there was a url link here which no longer exists) developed semi-stand with Rodinal 1+50, so I'd say that trying something is definitely worthwhile for Tri-X at 3200. Afraid I can't help with formulations using Microphen or ID11, but I'm sure somebody else can chime in.
 
Here is something to try - PMK or Pyrocat HD with pushed TRI-X I did that just for the heck of it and had some really interesting results. I double the concentration to keep the times under 20 mins in a tank. The Pyrocat HD will give you less compensation in the high values.

It is really hard to recommend processing without knowing if it was TX 400 or TXP and some general idea where your high values landed on the films curve. The curves of those two films are completely opposite of each other. If you shot TXP and NONE of the scene that you care about hit the strait line section of the curve you are in an uphill battle in a big big way no matter what developer you use.

This is TX 400 pushed in Pyro - yep pushed in pyro. Note this was not my first try.


RB
 
so I just developed the roll in ID11 stock for 14 minutes (the developer was colder than 68F) and the negatives look grainless to the eye. Medium agitation for 20 seconds every minute and a half. Highlights are intact and shadows have information. Interesting. I guess I have found a solid 120 BW film. Next try is 6400. If anyone is interested in scans I will post some soon.

Oh yeah it was a roll of 400, not 320. Sorry about that I forgot there were 2 kinds for 120.
 

Rb,

Well, from a technical viewpoint, this is a perfect example of the need for a Horseman 6x9 View. Had you pulled that back eye into focus and pulled the hands out of blobdom, this would have been an amazing photo.

I know you just posted this as an example of processing though and I give youse a "10" as far as what you have done. A model for further inspiration.

Thanks,

tim in san jose
 

Yea... Toddlers with a view camera in low light. I have done that but that was with daughter number 1 this is daughter number 3 and guess what - I figured out after years that they move. It's amazing I can get the close eye in focus at f1.4.

RB
 
rwboyer said:
Yea... Toddlers with a view camera in low light. I have done that but that was with daughter number 1 this is daughter number 3 and guess what - I figured out after years that they move. It's amazing I can get the close eye in focus at f1.4.

RB
Click to expand...

I realize that. I have two daughters of my own and the best photo I ever took was with a Zeiss Nettar set at f16 with flash. Just luck when it comes to kids.

Keep up the good work.

tim
 
Last edited by a moderator:
k_jupiter said:
I realize that. I have two daughters of my own and the best photo I ever took was with a Zeiss Nettar set at f16 with flash. Just luck when it comes to kids.

Keep up the good work.

tim
Click to expand...

Toddlers are tougher to shoot than cats. If you cannot shoot a cat well there is no way you can shoot a toddler.

RB
 
rwboyer said:
Toddlers are tougher to shoot than cats. If you cannot shoot a cat well there is no way you can shoot a toddler.
Click to expand...

Amen to that. Cat photos get a bad rap because there are so many puke-inducing ones out there, but I think they're a good exercise for the photographer anyway; if you can get a good portrait of a fast-moving, intelligent, perverse animal that can teleport to get away from you, you're doing OK.

Toddlers, of course, add to that same collection of tools the desire to walk up and grab the camera while you're composing. I've watched many a nice picture dissolve into a blur of grasping fingers before I was ready to shoot. (They don't teleport quite as well as the cats, though.)

-NT
 

That is exactly how I learned to focus and trigger the shutter as two completely individual processes when I was a kid - I shot my cat wide open and close. To this day I do better than any autofocus system under close to the subject wide open aperture conditions (as long as the viewfinder and screen is good)

RB
 

I would have said try it in Diafine. Visited your flickr page, but the image wasn't there. Do you have it posted somewhere?
 
I push Tri-x to 3200 on a regular basis, in XTOL (have also pushed to 1600 in D76 but these days I use XTOL more). It's a very pushable film...even at 35mm the grain is low at high speeds, it's mainly the contrast that goes up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register