Portraiture - Pushing Tri-X (TXP) 320 in Rodinal - To The Limits!

[stormbytes]

A few days ago I decided to run some tests on Tri-X (txp 320) in Rodinal. Naturally, my first stop was Apug.org to see what fellow Apug'rs had to report on the subject. In one such thread, I came across a reference to a thread on rangefinderforum.com which particularly caught my eye. I'd post a link to the thread, but their site seems to be down at the moment. The author of the thread posted a photograph (a portrait), claiming that it was shot with Tri-X, exposed at ISO 12,800 (a FIVE STOP PUSH!) and processed as follows:

Rodinal 1:50 - manual tank
51 min / 70 F
Agitated for 30 sec - first min, and then 10 sec (5 inversions) every 5 mins

The photograph was truly delightful. Despite being a bit low on the shadow detail, which is to be expected when pushing film, it was dramatic, very sharp and had that Rodinal "textured & defined lines" look to it.

I was hooked. The prospect of being able to shoot hand-held in 75%+ of situations and obtain great results was more then I was willing to pass up. I pulled out a fresh pro-pack of Tri-X 320 (TXP/120) and went off to shoot some test rolls. Here's the data from my tests:

Setting/Subect:

Portraiture, white fair-skinned female, blond hair. Diffuse outdoor lighting

Exposure:

(3) rolls of Tri-X 320 (TXP 120) were exposed indentically. On each roll, the first 5 frames were rated at EI 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 and 12,800, followed by a blank frame, and a repeat of the first 5 frames. I did this so that I could cut the rolls in half and develop each separately. I shot using a Bronica SQ-A with a PS-80mm lens and 120 film back. Incident light readings were taken using my Seikonic L-398 (relatively new, bought last year from B&H).

Development:

I've done 2 batches so far, at 30 & 45 minutes each, processed as follows.

Rodinal 1:50 @ 68 F
Agitation - 30 sec first minute, and 10 seconds e5min thereafter.
I used a Pattreson manual tank, and 500ml of solution p/run.

30 sec - Stop Bath
5 min - iLford Rapid Fix
2 min - Hypo
5 min - Wash (running water)

Printing:

Each negative from each of the batches was printed on Agfa VC Fiber (Semi-Matt) using a Saunders VCCE 4550 enlarger, and developed in Kodak Dektol 1:1.

Test Results:

Batch 1 - Deveoped for 30 minutes

Frame EI 12,800: Unprintable. Barely able to make out parts of the subject.

Frame EI 6400: Unprintable. Subject can be made out, but marginally.

Frame EI 3200: Unprintable. Subect can be clearly made out but scene lacks and semblance of contrast.

Frame EI 1600: Printable - though marginally, and only at maximum constrast setting. Results *may* be suitable for some applications, but I can't imagine it being seen as "intentional".

Frame EI 800: Acceptable. Though contrast still isn't exactly where it should be, skin tones are very nice and shadow detail is "adequate".

Batch 2 - Deveoped for 45 minutes

Frames EI 12,800, 6400 and 3200: Unprintable. Same issues as stated above, with only very minor "improvements". Dynamic range in the negatives isstill vastly inadequate.

Frame EI 1600: Acceptably printable, contrast setting #4. This EI may have some promise with extending of development time, and it is certainly worth the effort given the versatility offered by shooting at this speed.

Frame EI 800: Outstanding! Excellent dynamic range, printable at contrast setting #4 and higher. Skin tones and definition are superb. Photo is sharp and punchy. This is a definit keeper.


Conclusions:

In my tests, I find it to be simply IMPOSSIBLE for the author of the thread on rangefinderforum.com to have achieved his stated results using this film/developer combination. The gap between my results and those alledged by the author is so incredibly wide that it simply cannot be attributed to differences in agitation techniques, water hardness or any other random errors.

For the sake of satisfying the nut case in me, I processed an additional roll using Rodinal 1:25 @ 68 F, in-Jobo (constant agitation) for 30 minutes. The resulting frames, though lacking in the accutance gained by semi-stand development, showed comparable negative densities to the those obtained from manual processing. This, imho, effectively eliminates any doubt about further density buildup being made possible by varrying agitation, time or concentration of the developer solution

I posted these results on that very same thread (rangefinderforum.com), stopping short of calling the guy a liar outright. To this, the author replied that he was using Tri-X 400 (TX) and NOT Tri-X 320 (TXP). Also that his processing temperature was 70 F and NOT 68, and that he processed for 51 minutes vs. my 45 minutes.

Though these differences can be significant where there are minor discrepancies in the results obtained by two different people. I simply can't fathom how 6 minutes of added development time (roughly 15%) and a marginally different emulsion would yeild a net difference of 3 F-Stops with beautiful negs!

Would love to hear what Apug'rs have to say on the issue, and if I'm wrong - by all means, I'd love to stand corrected.

 

[df cardwell]

Your results are reminiscent of what "we" got from the combination, circa 1968 - 1972. It was a pretty common way to shoot.

TXP and TX have different charecteristics, and TXP in my Rolleiflex ran to 800 back then, and TX in the Leica, to 1250.

But I was shooting under nominally controlled lighting, interested in faces. The exposure indices were relative to negatives that printed 'people pictures' well.

Trust your results, write off the differences between your results and "Mr. TX @ 12,800" and go make lots of pictures !

.

 

[htmlguru4242]

The 400 speed Tri-X can apparently go to 12800. I've gotten printable negs. at EI 6400 developed in D-76, in Rodinal I'd imagine it'll be a bit better.

I've never pushed Tri-X 320, but the author of said "I've pushed it to 12800" thread was almost certainly using the ISO 400 stuff.

 

[NikoSperi]

I am pretty sure, without even looking, that I know exactly which Canadian you're talking about. I went somewhat nuts trying to to get something similar as he does actually get some really nice results. We have exchanged notes, and I do believe he is a very talented photographer.
However, the process used is mixed. Yes, the film is (marginally) exposed to light and developed for ISOs of 12,000 and such or more. However, the film is then scanned and the process goes digital. Scanning a thin negative is a good thing, while printing a thin negative is hell... as you seem to have confirmed. I have a roll of FP4 shot at 6400 which I scanned and printed. It won't print in the darkroom.

 

[NikoSperi]

Scanned negs FP4 @ 6400

A scanner can get more detail out of very thin negs than me out of an enlarger with the same negs...

 

[stormbytes]

TXP and TX have different charecteristics, and TXP in my Rolleiflex ran to 800 back then, and TX in the Leica, to 1250.

But I was shooting under nominally controlled lighting, interested in faces. The exposure indices were relative to negatives that printed 'people pictures' well.

df cardwell,

You make a very important point and one that simply cannot be emphasized enough. In my experiences, being an avid and seasoned film testing junkie, the only proper way to test film is precisely against your intended subject(s) and lighting conditions. Lots of people "test" their films to see what it produces, but only a fortunate and dedicated few truly grasp the purpose of testing film is NOT so that the film tells you what IT can/will do, but rather to obtain the look and result that you the photographer and fine artist are seeking.

Proponents of the Zone System will tell you that optimum dynamic range in a negative translates into a density range of 0.1 - 1.25 (over film base & fog). This is great for those of us shopping at the Gap for sweaters that are "one size fits all". Will the negs look decent? Will they print "well" ? Absolutely! But what "well" may mean for one photographer, may spell "boring" for another.

I think back to a day last year where I was fortunate enough to come to this realization in a telephone conversation with Michael A. Smith, posted to a thread back in the day. I had spent almost 5 years on Zone System testing and densitometry, without much to show for it.

Michael A Smith's reply: Trash the densitometer!

In the year that had since followed, I look back on that day and see it as as the best decision I've made in all of my time in photography. The testing that had since followed was concrete in method and specific to the intended application.

A practical understanding of the medium and how it responds to manipulation (develolper, temperatures, agitation methods, etc) is key, if one is to obtain prized negatives.

Was it Ansel that said "A spectacular print always begins with a spectacular negative." ?

 

[stormbytes]

I've never pushed Tri-X 320, but the author of said "I've pushed it to 12800" thread was almost certainly using the ISO 400 stuff.

I posted to that thread and yes, the author admittedly is using TX 400. I will be picking up some of that and running some tests - results to follow.

** Just a side note: I'd be nothing short of amazed if the push-difference actually proved to be 3-5 stops between these two flavors of Tri-X.

 

[stormbytes]

However, the film is then scanned and the process goes digital. Scanning a thin negative is a good thing, while printing a thin negative is hell... as you seem to have confirmed.

The possiblities of Digital over Film are endless. However, our Canadian friend who authored that thread was representing the "printability" and NOT the "scanability" of the negs resulting from the stated exposure indeces. If memory serves, I'm pretty sure the thread included a scan of an actual print and NOT a film scan - I could be wrong.

For the time being, I'll chalk it up to emulsion differences between TX & TXP flavors of Tri-X. As I've stated in another reply on this thread, I'll be testing TX 400 to reproduce "printable" negatives at a range of EI's, up to and including those mentioned in the post on rangefinderforum.com. I will be posting results in this thread.

Thus far, I've confirmed that Tri-x 320 (TXP) when used for portraiture in outdoor (diffuse) lighting, pushes flawelessly to EI 800 yielding perfectly "printable" negatives - though at high contrast filtration (#4+). This, when hand-developed in the following configuration:

Rodinal 1:50 @ 68 F for 52 Minutes

Agitation: Continuous inversions - first 30 seconds; 5 inversions (10 sec) at 5 minute intervals thereafter.

30 sec - Stop Bath
5 min - Fix (iLford Hypam)
2 min - Kodak Hypoclear 1+4
5 min - Wash under running tap water

 

[timeUnit]

From what I've heard here on apug and elsewhere, TXP 320 and TX 400 are each others opposites. I'm not at all surprised about your poor results with pushed TXP, in fact, the first thing I thought when I read the initial post was "Oh no, don't even try it". I've read a few similar reports about people mistakenly using TXP instead of TX and gotten very disappointed.

AFAIK, TXP is a highlight separating film, ie it has high contrast in the highlights and low contrast in the shadows. TX is the opposite. When pushing TXP you get only chalk and soot, but with TX you get a smoother tonal scale. Again, I've not tried TXP personally. I have pushed Tri-X to 1600 with acceptable results.

Of course, the testing is always a good thing, so keep it up.

 

[df cardwell]

From what I've heard here on apug and elsewhere, TXP 320 and TX 400 are each others opposites. ......

TX and TXP are different, but not extremely so. Here are Kodak's curves.

TXP is intended to compress shadows while expanding highlights, while TX is pretty much a straightline film. TXP is designed as a studio portrait film, TX for going out into the wilds armed only with your Leica and loincloth.

Giving extra development to TXP will increase the midtone densities and the highlight... but not to the shadows

I'm adding the TMY just for the heck of it

 

[stormbytes]

The 400 speed Tri-X can apparently go to 12800. I've gotten printable negs. at EI 6400 developed in D-76, in Rodinal I'd imagine it'll be a bit better.

I've never pushed Tri-X 320, but the author of said "I've pushed it to 12800" thread was almost certainly using the ISO 400 stuff.

I'd love to see how you can obtain *anything* printable at speeds that high. It's been a while but I still haven't gotten this whole shpiel out of my head. I can only conclude that the resolving power of a scanner is far greater then that of traditional darkroom papers.

This point is further supported by the fact that the naked eye can see a lot of detail in the reflection of the emulsion side of the negative, whereas the paper cannot resolve even a fraction thereof!

 

[stormbytes]

TX and TXP are different, but not extremely so. Here are Kodak's curves.

TXP is intended to compress shadows while expanding highlights, while TX is pretty much a straightline film. TXP is designed as a studio portrait film, TX for going out into the wilds armed only with your Leica and loincloth.

Giving extra development to TXP will increase the midtone densities and the highlight... but not to the shadows

I'm adding the TMY just for the heck of it

After having repeated the same tests with 3mm/TX-400 I have to stand by my original results with little discrepancy. In short, Tri-x with Rodinal simply cannot surpass the ISO 1600 point (a 3 stop push) and still maintain something that could be characterized as "acceptable".

 

[Paul Howell]

After having repeated the same tests with 3mm/TX-400 I have to stand by my original results with little discrepancy. In short, Tri-x with Rodinal simply cannot surpass the ISO 1600 point (a 3 stop push) and still maintain something that could be characterized as "acceptable".

I guess it boils down down to what is acceptable. I have shot old TX 400 (70s edition) at 3200 developed in Rodinal with printable prints that made it to the wire. My usual push developer was Dinafine or Acufine, but at the time all I had on hand was Rodinal. My guess is that modern emlusions are thiner and do not push as well as the older versions did.

 

[kwmullet]

Chasing the wild goose

Yeah, this is one wild goose that I think pretty much everyone, especially LF shooters (for whom film over ISO 400 isn't made) would like to catch.

I'd really like to believe that the guy on rangefinderforum with the amazing Rodinal push results (what was it? Something like ISO 64,000?) with TX in Rodinal is sincere. I have chosen to believe that maybe he's accurately describing what film, developer and procedure he used, and is showing us the image used with that combination, but that maybe his estimation of exposure index must be unintentionally off.

Recently, I've heard here and there that Ilford HP5 has a lot of potential for pushing and that of the conventional B&W 400 films, it has the most push potential.

That's got me wondering if maybe the way to exact the best push out of it is to develop by inspection with a very dilute developer, something with some energy to it like D76 or Rodinal, until the highlights and midtones are where I want them, then gently take the film and set it in a water bath, rapping once to get rid of bubbles, and maybe let it set in a water bath for an hour or so so that any developer absorbed into the shadow portions of the image can completely exhaust itself.

Thoughts/flames?

-KwM-

 

[dynachrome]

The last developer I would use for pushing is Rodinal. My first choice would be Microphen. Other good pushing developers are Acufine, UFG, Clayton F60, NACCO Super 76 and FG-7 with 9% sulfite solution. When Nixon was still in the White House I was doing a lot of available light b&w photography. If time was short we used hot Dektol for school photos. Eventually we used 2475 and 2484. They were very grainy but inherently faster than Tri-X and with better shadow detail at higher EIs. It would have been nice to have TMZ back then. I think Diafine is more useful for contrast control than for pushing but this depends on the film. I still experiment with many different developers including some I make up myself but I don't think I have the patience to do all the testing I did when I was much younger.

 

[Paul Howell]

I no longer push 400 speed film, I use Tmax or Delta 3200 shot at 1600 developed in DDX 1:5 at box time for the 1:4 delution. I consider Tmax or Detla shot at 3200 to be a push so I give the 1:5 time a 50% increase. As I have not seen Dinafine in my market for several years I have not Tmax 3200 in Dianfine but I am courious and may order Dinafine on life for just one more experiment. Overall I amy very happy with Tmax in DDX.

 

[RoBBo]

TMZ in DDX or XTol will easily get you to and beyond the point he was at.
I've pushed Tri-X 400 to 3200 in XTol and gotten more than acceptable images.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/91478332@N00/398520076/
Tempted now to try an extra stop or two and see what I get out of it, I can't imagine Rodinal would be the best choice for that.

 

[Maris]

Back in the 1960's I got thoroughly fooled by a colleague who claimed he shot TX at ASA (wasn't ISO then) 3200 and got superb results. His photographs were sharp and full of shadow detail.

He developed the TX in D-76 diluted 1+3 in a small tank by agitating for a minute then putting the tank down untouched until the same time next day to fix and wash. I tried (frustratingly) to duplicate the result and got nothing worth keeping. Finally I asked to watch what he was doing. The penny dropped immediately.

The Leica he used had no meter so he used a hand held with 3200 set on the film speed dial. To "prove" his EI 3200 claims were true he made a point of metering the deepest shadows and then setting the indicated exposure on his Leica. In Zone-speak he had been measuring Zone 2 at film speed 3200 but that is the same as measuring Zone 5 at film speed 400. No wonder he got all that shadow detail!

I wonder how many spectacular film push results are an artifact of what is metered and how.

 

[patrickjames]

That claim on rff is pretty much bu!!@h!t. You can definitely scan a thin neg that is unprintable, but the laws of physics are the laws of physics. If his claims cannot be reproduced by anyone else then he is doing something different; either on purpose, or he doesn't realize it. Just because someone says they are shooting it at 64,000 doesn't mean that the film is actually getting that little light.

Patrick

 

[stormbytes]

That's got me wondering if maybe the way to exact the best push out of it is to develop by inspection with a very dilute developer, something with some energy to it like D76 or Rodinal, until the highlights and midtones are where I want them, then gently take the film and set it in a water bath, rapping once to get rid of bubbles, and maybe let it set in a water bath for an hour or so so that any developer absorbed into the shadow portions of the image can completely exhaust itself.

There's pushing and there's PUSHING. You can squeeze 2-3 stops out of practically any emulsion out there. What I was aiming for was 5+ stops with acceptable results ("acceptable" being a relative term here).

I'd like to agree that the guy on RFF certainly had good itentions. However, I have to chalk it up to the differences in the final medium (neg scan vs. traditional paper). Traditional paper just isn't capable of competing with a neg scanner in rendering an image from a negative that has been pushed beyond any stretch of its capabilities.

 

[stormbytes]

TMZ in DDX or XTol will easily get you to and beyond the point he was at.
I've pushed Tri-X 400 to 3200 in XTol and gotten more than acceptable images.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/91478332@N00/398520076/
Tempted now to try an extra stop or two and see what I get out of it, I can't imagine Rodinal would be the best choice for that.

"Imacon 868" seems to be the keyword there. I would like to see these negs rendered on traditional silver gelatin. I'm not doubting you for a second! However, after countless hours wasted chasing someone elses results, I've grown more cautious this time around.

I have heard wonders of Xtol, it's on my list of combinations to try. The images you posted are certainly lovely considering the push. However, I love grain!

Ride on!

 

[stormbytes]

That claim on rff is pretty much bu!!@h!t. You can definitely scan a thin neg that is unprintable, but the laws of physics are the laws of physics. If his claims cannot be reproduced by anyone else then he is doing something different; either on purpose, or he doesn't realize it. Just because someone says they are shooting it at 64,000 doesn't mean that the film is actually getting that little light.

Patrick

Pat,

Where the hell were you 15 hours & 2 gallons of developer ago??

 

[RoBBo]

"Imacon 868" seems to be the keyword there. I would like to see these negs rendered on traditional silver gelatin. I'm not doubting you for a second! However, after countless hours wasted chasing someone elses results, I've grown more cautious this time around.

I have heard wonders of Xtol, it's on my list of combinations to try. The images you posted are certainly lovely considering the push. However, I love grain!

Ride on!

I've had time to print a good half of them (The TMZ ones atleast) and they look mighty fine on silver too.
Only ones I haven't had time for yet are the Tri-X @ 3200, really excited for those too, guna try some selenium toner and all that.
But you know how scanning prints looks...

 

[ZoneIII]

I'm surprised that you didn't know of the differences between TX and TXP since you say you are "an avid and seasoned film testing junkie." With all due respect, this is common knowledge. In fact, I would have thought everyone who shoots b&w knew it, let alone one of "fortunate and dedicated few truly grasp the purpose of testing film." We are, after all, talking about two of the most common films out there and even published info on the films makes their differences clear.

"...the ONLY (my emphasis added) proper way to test film is precisely against your intended subject(s) and lighting conditions. Lots of people "test" their films to see what it produces, but only a fortunate and dedicated few truly grasp the purpose of testing film."

I guess you are telling us that you are one of those "fortunate and dedicated few (who) truly grasp the purpose of film testing." I'm impressed! In fact, I feel honored to know you are here. But anyone who really does grasp the purpose of film testing would be foolish to trash their densitometer. Instead, they should learn how to use it properly. It's as simple as that. It's a tool, that's all. And I can't imagine anyone who would test film to "see what it produces." Are you telling us that that's what you did? If so, no wonder you didn't get the results you hoped for which is clearly the case. You test film to see what it's capabilities and limitations are and to learn how to control it with predictability. You do not use it to produce graphs or to become an "avid and seasoned film testing junkie." Hey! You said it!

In addition, I would be careful about making any statement that begins with, "the only way...". That reveals and inflexible attitude that is contrary to what I believe you were trying to express. In the right hands, a densitometer is a very valuable and useful tool but it's goal is to enable creative expression, not produce graphs. It sounds like you were not using it properly and creatively. But don't assume that other's use it improperly. Ansel seemed to do pretty well, wouldn't you agree? The proper use of a densitometer was a key to his work. Your statement (above) implies that Ansel didn't know what he was doing since he didn't use what you consider to be "the only way" to test film. I have seen many people who became obsessed with film testing and you make it clear that you went through that phase. When they get over that phase, like you, they often find that simply shooting their subject matter and experimenting is an excellent way to improve their work and it is. In my opinion, you should combine the two. They compliment each other. When you get to the next level, you will probably want your densitometer back if you trashed it ---but I am willing to bet you didn't. If not, why is that? It's because you know that a densitometer really is an excellent tool. But now it appears that you realize that its goal is not an end in itself. It's a mistake to assume, as you clearly have, that other people have not progressed way beyond that point. You have learned a fundamental lesson - that is, that formal testing must be combined with actual shooting. Good for you! That's what progress is all about.

Best

 

[stormbytes]

Dear ZoneIII,

I'm really impressed by the depth to which you've scrutinized my post(s) in this thread. Surely this much attention from someone who is clearly inteligent and well educated in the field lends substance to the subject matter - a much appreciated contribution!

I'd like to address your points sequentially, so here goes:

I'm surprised that you didn't know of the differences between TX and TXP since you say you are "an avid and seasoned film testing junkie." With all due respect, this is common knowledge. In fact, I would have thought everyone who shoots b&w knew it, let alone one of "fortunate and dedicated few truly grasp the purpose of testing film."

I'd have to disagree. Frankly, I don't see the correlation between testing a given film and knowing available films and their differences. TX & TXP are essentially 2 flavors of the same (or similar) emulsion. I don't know the history or science behind it. To me, Tri-X was always just that - Tri-x. I only became aware of the differences once I started testing. I suppose I'd call it an oversight but hardly an extraordinary one.

"...the ONLY (my emphasis added) proper way to test film is precisely against your intended subject(s) and lighting conditions. Lots of people "test" their films to see what it produces, but only a fortunate and dedicated few truly grasp the purpose of testing film."

I guess you are telling us that you are one of those "fortunate and dedicated few (who) truly grasp the purpose of film testing." I'm impressed! In fact, I feel honored to know you are here. But anyone who really does grasp the purpose of film testing would be foolish to trash their densitometer. Instead, they should learn how to use it properly. It's as simple as that. It's a tool, that's all. And I can't imagine anyone who would test film to "see what it produces." Are you telling us that that's what you did? If so, no wonder you didn't get the results you hoped for which is clearly the case. You test film to see what it's capabilities and limitations are and to learn how to control it with predictability. You do not use it to produce graphs or to become an "avid and seasoned film testing junkie." Hey! You said it!

I'm not entirely sure what to tackle first here. Densitometry is, as I see it, a way of (measuring and) recording values that are essentially qualitative (Eg. "very dark" = Zone II = 1.4D, Etc.) so that the information may be used in planning and predicting the way that a given scene will print. I would certainly agree with the notion that a densitometer has it's place in fine art photography but I see it is "one method" of doing things rather then a "step" in a general progression.

Furthermore, not all methods suit all people. It sounds like you really know what you're doing with a Denso, and if so, I'm glad you've developed a workflow that suites you. Though I may agree that I wasn't making ideal use of the device, I do understand its place (at least now) and stand by my assessment of the method not suiting my personal taste. Dynamic range of (or "as expressed by") a given film/paper combination exists on it's own - the densitometer simply measures it. I prefer to "see" it on paper and record the means by which the results were obtained rather then represent these in terms of a density range. Personal choice I guess.

In addition, I would be careful about making any statement that begins with, "the only way...". That reveals and inflexible attitude that is contrary to what I believe you were trying to express.

I meant it figuratively - humor me

In the right hands, a densitometer is a very valuable and useful tool but it's goal is to enable creative expression, not produce graphs. It sounds like you were not using it properly and creatively. But don't assume that other's use it improperly. Ansel seemed to do pretty well, wouldn't you agree? The proper use of a densitometer was a key to his work. Your statement (above) implies that Ansel didn't know what he was doing since he didn't use what you consider to be "the only way" to test film.

I can venture a guess and say that the densitometer suited Ansel's work flow (from his writings). He seemed to be meticulous about reproduceability and consistency. I suppose the means (in this case using a denso) are dictated by the ends (reproduceability/accuracy). To make a blanket statement such as "Ansel used it pretty well" is neither true nor valid on its own. Consider the work of Gandolfi on the Apug galleries. Do you think his style would benefit from densitometry?

Though I love some of Ansel's landscapes, I think he couldn't shoot portraiture to save his life. Personally, I dont' give a rat's ass about "shadow detail" when it comes to dramatic nudes.

My $0.02

Thoughts?