It was in my camera for over a year

So I just finished a roll of Tri-X 400 and took it out, completely forgetting I pushed it to 1600 (luckily I wrote it on the cassette!!) First time I tried pushing film. Hsven\t picked up a camera in over a year

I used DD-X to dev at 20c 14 mins to try and keep the grain as minimal as poss. I must say, I absolutely love the contrast and the grain. Here are a couple of raw scans (no edits). I know they're not perfect, some highlights and shadows blown, it was more a trial but I quite like them.

Looks a hell of a lot better than my first time developing pushed tri-x. I used D-76 and it was more grain than actual photo. I like these!

saman13 said:

Looks a hell of a lot better than my first time developing pushed tri-x. I used D-76 and it was more grain than actual photo. I like these!

Click to expand...

Cheers Saman! I appreciate it. Maybe I got lucky!! But I like them too. I tried Rodinol on some normally exposed Tri-x the other day, first time with RO9, and I really liked the grain compared to the fine grain with DD-X. It's made me a bit more open to experiment with different exposures and developers. Will try some other film too I think. Any recommendations (I love high contrast)?

I'm pretty new to film (and pretty boring) so I've only shot a few emulsions: Tri-x, Tmax, HP5, Delta 400, and Kentmere 100. I haven't really fallen in love with any of them yet. Actually, I take that back. I fell in love with HP5 in medium format. Really rich blacks (see the attached photo). But I've shot quite a few rolls of it in 35mm and I feel pretty ambivalent about it. The ultra cheap Kentmere 100 might actually be the film I've liked the results most with.

saman13 said:

I'm pretty new to film (and pretty boring) so I've only shot a few emulsions: Tri-x, Tmax, HP5, Delta 400, and Kentmere 100. I haven't really fallen in love with any of them yet. Actually, I take that back. I fell in love with HP5 in medium format. Really rich blacks (see the attached photo). But I've shot quite a few rolls of it in 35mm and I feel pretty ambivalent about it. The ultra cheap Kentmere 100 might actually be the film I've liked the results most with.

Click to expand...

Man, that's an awesome shot dude!! What medium format camera do you use? Was this scanned as a neg or a print?

Thanks a lot! It was shot on a Pentax 67ii that I borrowed from my photography professor. I really want to get a medium format outfit but I haven't stumbled across one in my price point (read: low) yet. I still have a few rolls of 120 Ilford in the fridge...

If I remember correctly this was just scanned from the negative. No tweaks other than removing some dust I had left on the film. I shot a whole series of shots like this:

Don't try that with pan f+

jaydebruyne said:

So I just finished a roll of Tri-X 400 and took it out, completely forgetting I pushed it to 1600 (luckily I wrote it on the cassette!!) First time I tried pushing film. Hsven\t picked up a camera in over a year

I used DD-X to dev at 20c 14 mins to try and keep the grain as minimal as poss. I must say, I absolutely love the contrast and the grain. Here are a couple of raw scans (no edits). I know they're not perfect, some highlights and shadows blown, it was more a trial but I quite like them.

View attachment 183026 View attachment 183027 View attachment 183028 View attachment 183029 View attachment 183030 View attachment 183031 View attachment 183032

Click to expand...

I am sure you will handle your problem.
But my concern to your post is total different.
It is your shooting.
Just have a look on picture no. 2 and no. 7 !!!!!
Did you notice something before?
Excellent work. Have you ever made a decission to become a proffessional?
Notice : This kind of photography nobody can teach you. You can read 100 books an you never will be able to learn to shoot.
You have it or you have it not - there are thinks can't be learned.
Thing about!
But bewarf of : You have to know hat are your good shots and what aren't it within very short time.Otherwise it isn't working.
Test yourself : What is with shot no. 1 ?
Is it the same as the shots I mentioned ?
If you would like to say : Yes it is also a very nice shot - better not decide to become a proffessional !
Because you can't see the difference.
And thats the case to the most of all of us.So never mind about.
Photography is sometimes just to say thats "great" but you must have the "eye"
to notice.

with regards

GarageBoy said:

Don't try that with pan f+

Click to expand...

This one is tricky one for developing delay after exposure!


As for OP, this is how pushed @1600 HP5+ looks on darkroom prints:

And scan from even cheaper Kentmere 400.

No need to buy overpriced for no real reason film a.k.a. Kodak TRI-X. IMO.