Images of Tri-X pushed to 3200

[edge-t]

Hi all,

Not sure if this been posted before, but I've pushed Tri-x to 3200 on 4 rolls or so. The negatives are lacking in Shadow details majorly. While I understand that it's not meant to be underexposed for 3 stops, but I had no other film, Tri-X was all I had.

Working with dim-average street lights. opened up about 12-13 stops from Sunny 16 on the average.

Developed in HC-110 1:100, 6ml of developer to 2 rolls, 27 degrees celsius; agitate first 10 seconds and none for the remaining 36 minutes.

Don't have a film scanner at the moment, so can't show the results. I was wondering if anyone pushed to 3200 and has some results to show. I'll post some pictures in Jan when I get me a cheap flatbed.

 

[eddym]

I have pushed HP5+ to 3200 when shooting dance in dark theaters and other venues. It is doable, but gets really contrasty. Here's an example...
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

 

[Herzeleid]

I pushed tri-x to 3200 too. Developed in ID11 stock as I recall. I only took 6 frames cut and developed them to test. The same story almost no shadow details, mostly solid blacks. Nothing special I just took a few snapshots my cat works great for evaluating shadow details , it is a low res scan.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y33/serdarb/cat.jpg

 

[edge-t]

Looks about the same as my negatives. I guess no shadow details is a common thing when pushing film so aggressively--I guess I'll have to live with it. Have any of you guys tried pushing Neopan 1600 or Delta 3200?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Here's a scan of an albumen print from a few years ago from an 8x10" TXT neg pushed two stops in RAF pyro-metol, which is a speed developer designed for reconnaissance photography. I find it can produce a genuine speed increase of about two stops with normal contrast, but you've got to test it with the film and lighting conditions you're using. You can find the formula in the articles section under "staining developers." The grain is going to be enormous for 35mm. The scan shows a lot of texture from the paper surface, so the graininess in the scan isn't all film grain.

Could you underexpose one stop beyond the two stop speed boost from RAF pyro-metol and still get something printable? It could be worth a test.

 

[Herzeleid]

Looks about the same as my negatives. I guess no shadow details is a common thing when pushing film so aggressively--I guess I'll have to live with it. Have any of you guys tried pushing Neopan 1600 or Delta 3200?

I haven't tried any of them. I used tmax 3200. It was a bit on the OK side but I believe that when you push tri-x to 3200 you need another developer. Hc-110 and ID-11/D76 are for general purposes. I tried HP5+ and tri-X at 1600 in ID-11, they are ok, tri-x is quite contrasty though. But I won't try 3200 again with a general purpose developer.

That 8x10 print of David looks great for a tri-x at 3200. I think an alternative developer for pushing is the way to go. But 35mm and the grain is a limiting factor.

 

[whlogan]

Better yet develop the negs in Ilford DDX.... expensive, but the results will dazzle you... really follow the directions, of course.... B&H or Adorama has the stuff...

Logan

 

[edge-t]

I haven't tried any of them. I used tmax 3200. It was a bit on the OK side but I believe that when you push tri-x to 3200 you need another developer. Hc-110 and ID-11/D76 are for general purposes. I tried HP5+ and tri-X at 1600 in ID-11, they are ok, tri-x is quite contrasty though. But I won't try 3200 again with a general purpose developer.

That 8x10 print of David looks great for a tri-x at 3200. I think an alternative developer for pushing is the way to go. But 35mm and the grain is a limiting factor.

I've pushed Tri-X to 1600 with HC-110 before, negatives look fine, shadows a little dense, but acceptable for me--not sure about the grain though. Trying to stick to a simple 1 developer/1 film setup. I guess 2 stops should be the max push for me.

Thanks for taking the time to reply so far.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

That 8x10 print of David looks great for a tri-x at 3200. I think an alternative developer for pushing is the way to go. But 35mm and the grain is a limiting factor.

It's more like 1280--TXT was ISO 320, and it's pushed two stops. I use this formula only for negs to be contact printed, but I'm fairly confident you could get EI1600 out of TX400 with it, at the expense of massive grain. One more stop may still not be too bad.

 

[Uncle Bill]

Kodak Tri-x at 3200

Here are three examples of Tri-x pushed to 3200, I stand developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 2 hours with 30 secs agitation to start and 10 seconds gentle agitation every half hour at 20c.

I was using a Nikon F3HP with a Nikkor 105 f2.5 AIS telephoto at a IABC Toronto professional development event I attended for public relations practitioners in late November.

 

[edge-t]

Here are three examples of Tri-x pushed to 3200, I stand developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 2 hours with 30 secs agitation to start and 10 seconds gentle agitation every half hour at 20c.

I was using a Nikon F3HP with a Nikkor 105 f2.5 AIS telephoto at a IABC Toronto professional development event I attended for public relations practitioners in late November.

Looks pretty good for a 3 stop push. I'm pretty alright with the grain too. Damn it, I need to get a fricking scanner.

 

[Uncle Bill]

I was using Xtol 1+1 but I like the look of Rodinal 1:100 much better and I don't mind the two hour stand development.

 

[edge-t]

I got myself a Canon 8800f--flatbed scanner. Here's a few shoot of how my Tri-X pushed to 3200, souped in HC-110 1:100 look like.

They look pretty alright don't they? Sure, not much shadow details; it's still pretty good considering that it was pushed 3 stops.

 

[Palantiri7]

Wow! Quite nice!

 

[edge-t]

Here's a few more pictures that I think people who want to push Tri-X to 3200 might be interested in.

 

[jglass]

So, to be clear, to do this push, you underexposed by three stops and then increased development by what %? I use D-76, so your HC-110 times aren't too useful for me.

Thanks

Jeff Glass

 

[edge-t]

Underexposed by 3 stops, multiplied my HC-110 development time by 3.375. That's 1:100 dilution 27 degrees Celsius and 36 minutes. Not too sure about D-76.

 

[glbeas]

I've done this with Acufine or Ethol developer and rated at 6400 for available darkness shooting when I was shooting for my hometown paper so long ago. Shadows were quite blank but I got plenty of interesting shots.