Pushing My First Roll

[bvy]

I’ll be developing my first black and white film this weekend. It’s Kodak Tri-X 400 that I shot using my Olympus XA2. One problem (maybe): I had the camera set to 800, so I’ve underexposed by one stop.

It wasn’t my intention to complicate things for this, my first film developing experience, but hopefully it’s not too big a deal; I think pushing means just adjusting the development time. Problem is, I’ve see references that say do nothing different if it’s only one stop, and others that say to multiply the development time by 1.5.

Can someone help? My developer is Kodak D76 that I mixed up earlier this week. How should I adjust the development time? Also, should I use it stock or diluted? My other chemicals are Kodak Indicator Stop and Ilford Rapid Fixer.

Thank you.

 

[hpulley]

Kodak's data sheet F-4017 says 1 stop underexposure is normal development which is 6:45 @20C/68F with D-76 stock or 9:45 @20C/68F with D-76 1+1. Using 1+1 gives better economy, longer development times which can give more even results; it can give slightly different grain and constrast as well but at this point it doesn't really matter that much so just decide if you want your D-76 to go twice as far or not (if you won't use it much you might as well use it stock so it doesn't go bad if you made a big batch).

 

[markbarendt]

One stop under with this film doesn't require adjustment.

 

[hrst]

I'd still do push processing even if some suggest that it's "good enough" without doing it. However, if you are unsure, that 50% extra can be too much.

This is not rocket science, but rather a process where you find the best developing time that suits your taste and processing style. If others say 50% extra and others no change, why not put 25% extra?

 

[jeffreyg]

I agree with the no adjustment required. What was the subject and lighting situation? If it was flat and not with much contrast you might consider a longer development time but I would go less than +25%. Also if you have not established the effective ISO for your equipment with that film you may not have underexposed it. So, go with no adjustment and if the results are not to your liking consider it a learning experience and make corrections the next time.

http://jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[markbarendt]

I'd still do push processing even if some suggest that it's "good enough" without doing it.

One of the "some" is Kodak.

Pushing doesn't appreciably change the shadow point. So no significant gain in detail is available there.

Pushing increases grain, that can be a drawback.

There's lots of latitude in the film and 1-stop under is easy to adjust for in printing.

Without testing done by the OP I see no upside to pushing in this situation.

 

[brucemuir]

What were the lighting conditions of the roll or was it many different scenes with all different lighting?

 

[bvy]

Thanks. These are all outdoor shots. About 75% of the roll is cloudy or cloudy/bright, 25% is full sun. It's mostly street photography, buildings, walls, etc. It's a 24 exposure roll if that matters.

 

[artonpaper]

I tell my students, when shooting film that contains lots of different subjects and scenes, don't push. But since you already underexposed a stop, the general rule that works well is to multiply the recommended time by 1.4, for each stop you've underexposed. Some shots will be OK, some won't. There's a frustration factor in photography. Pushing film, pushes that factor.

 

[brian steinberger]

I would add atleast 20% to the development time. I believe the normal time for Tri-x and D-76 1:1 is around 10 minutes. Try 12 or 13 minutes. Since you don't have much established yet as far as a normal development time, as others said, use this as a learning experience. The shots in overcast lighting should benefit from being shot at 800 anyway.

 

[bvy]

I think I'm going to dilute. I do like to economize, but more than that, I think the longer development time (pushing aside) might be more forgiving to whatever fits and starts I might have fumbling with lids and chemicals and such.

That said, am I really economizing? I read that, diluted or not, I need 8 oz. of stock per 36 exposure roll of film. My tank (Paterson) holds two reels. So it sounds like the tank is either half full with stock (just covering the reel), or totally full diluted.

And to complicate things further, I have a 24 exposure roll.

Is this a correct assumption? How much diluted developer (1:1) should I use exactly?

 

[hpulley]

You need at least 290mL according to Paterson. I find that can be a little iffy, I like to fill 345 (12oz) for one roll just in case. If you really need 8oz then you could put 16oz 1+1 in there to be sure, or 10-12oz of stock. 8oz will perfectly fill a steel tank though, like my Nikors so if you really want economy, get some steel reels. I have both, single and double Nikor stainless and double and triple Paterson plastic.

6oz of stock should do for a 24-roll however so 12oz 1+1 would be perfect.

 

[brian steinberger]

I'm assuming you have a 16oz tank. I usually don't fill them to the rim. I'd use slightly less, so 14oz. If you use un-diluted you'll use 14 oz of D-76, if you dilute 1:1 then it's 7oz of D-76 and 7 oz of water. It's that simple. You always want to have the same amount of liquid in the tank regardless of dilution. Doesn't matter if you have a 24 or 36 roll. And if it's a two reel tank and you're only developing one roll, put the empty reel on top.

 

[markbarendt]

That said, am I really economizing? I read that, diluted or not, I need 8 oz. of stock per 36 exposure roll of film. My tank (Paterson) holds two reels. So it sounds like the tank is either half full with stock (just covering the reel), or totally full diluted.

And to complicate things further, I have a 24 exposure roll.

Is this a correct assumption? How much diluted developer (1:1) should I use exactly?

You are economizing because all you really need is is to cover the film fully in the tank. I don't remember the 8 oz. Limit. As to 24 exp that isn't an issue in this situation, covering the film is.

With that said you need to understand that dilution is not simply about economy. Dilution changes the way developers work. In this case dilution adds more grain and sharpness.

You should ask yourself, "Is that really what I want?" & "Do I really know what I want?"

Also with regard to economy, the difference in cost is about 17 cents a roll. If the pictures in question are truly important, is saving that 17 cents really the best choice?

 

[ic-racer]

If this is your first film developing experience, I'd just throw that roll out and expose another at IE 200 and proceed from there. Underexpose negatives are not going to print right no matter what you do.

 

[markbarendt]

If this is your first film developing experience, I'd just throw that roll out and expose another at IE 200 and proceed from there. Underexpose negatives are not going to print right no matter what you do.

Really? I think there are a few of us here that have at least one negative 1-stop under that we like.

And why 200? I'm not against extra exposure but Tri-X seems to work fine at 400.

Even if it doesn't turn out perfect, running through the mechanics and practicing the motions and seeing the timer count down is important.

 

[hrst]

There are three kind of people;

1) People who scream that Tri-X MUST be shot at 200. They call themselves "fine art photographers", typically.
2) People who scream that Tri-X MUST be shot at 800 or even 1600. They call themselves "street photographers", typically.
3) People who are silent, and probably most of them shoot it at 400 as suggested by manufacturer, or overexpose a bit which is a good practice with any neg material.

Notice the funny contradiction between 1 and 2 . This shows that there are no strict "rules" in photography; you test different possibilities to see by your own eyes which is the look you like. Manufacturers give starting points. And, many people do not test anything, going with manufacturers' instructions, being totally happy with the results.

 

[bwrules]

When I shoot at 800 I just add a minute or so to the 400 time and get good results.

 

[2F/2F]

If the lighting was flat, I'd push. If it was not flat, or if the pix shot had wide luminance ranges, then I would not push, as it might make the negs a bear to print. You cannot just consider the EI setting used on the meter; most importantly, you have to consider the quality of the light in which you shot, and the compositions you shot.

 

[brian steinberger]

There's no reason to throw out this roll. If you just develop it in D-76 1:1 for 12 or 13 min it'll be good enough to save the roll and you might be surprised with how well the flat lighting negatives come out. From there, take notes, take notes, take notes!!

 

[2F/2F]

That's just nuts. Huge amounts of the film I have shot is underexposed out of necessity, and other rolls were underexposed on purpose. I guess I should have thrown it all out because it just won't print "right" no matter what I do. Let's not even get into all of the outstanding photos that have been printed from underexposed film (some severely underexposed) throughout history. The idea that anything but technical perfection will result in a photograph that is not even worth printing, let alone developing, is totally absurd. If you get your jollies out of technical perfection of the craft for no specific end, then knock yourself out. But if you like making interesting and meaningful photographs in real-world situations, you cannot obsess over technique to the level at which you throw something out if it is not ideal. Technique is important, but don't let it cripple your photography.

 

[bvy]

Thank you all. I'm about to get started. I've decided on 1+1 for twelve minutes.

As it relates to economy, my reason for asking was not because I was trying to pinch pennies or anything like that. I only brought it up because someone earlier mentioned that I could make it go twice as far by diluting. That seemed to contradict other things I was reading -- the statement that a pack of D76 powder was good for X number of rolls no matter how it was (or wasn't) diluted. I was just trying to understand.

You should ask yourself, "Is that really what I want?" & "Do I really know what I want?"

No. I don't know what I want. But that's another day, another forum.

Thank you all again for the prompt and honest responses.

 

[markbarendt]

Have fun.

 

[bvy]

I'm done. The negative looks... pretty good. I haven't made a contact sheet or scanned it yet, so this is kind of tentative. There's a very slight purplish tint, but I think that's to be expected.

One strange thing. The negative seems to have some funny bends and kinks in it. Not from mishandling or anything like that. For example, I hung it with a plastic clothes pin hanging from the bottom. And the whole strip is bowed. It's hanging in a long curve, like it's defying gravity... Does this make sense? Maybe I need something heavier on the end to pull it straight.

eta: D76 1+1 12 min., Kodak ind. stop 1 min., Ilford Rapid Fixer 3 min., Ilford wash5+10+20+20 (last step with distilled water), Photo Flo 1 min. soak, hang in steamy bathroom. All chemicals at 68F.

 

[markbarendt]

The bend is normal and mostly go away once the emulsion dries.